Abstract
Purpose
Changes in the production of Australian cotton lint are expected to have a direct environmental impact, as well as indirect impacts related to co-product substitution and induced changes in crop production. The environmental consequences of a 50% expansion or contraction in production were compared to Australian cotton production’s current environmental footprint. Both were then assessed to investigate whether current impacts are suitable for predicting the environmental impact of a change in demand for cotton lint.
Methods
A consequential life cycle assessment (LCA) model of Australian cotton lint production (cradle-to-gin gate) was developed using plausible scenarios regarding domestic regions and technologies affected by changes in supply, with both expansion (additional cotton) and contraction (less cotton) being modelled. Modelling accounted for direct impacts from cotton production and indirect impacts associated with changes to cotton production, including co-product substitution and changes to related crops at regional and global scales. Impact categories assessed included climate change, fossil energy demand, freshwater consumption, water stress, marine and freshwater eutrophication, land occupation and land-use change.
Results and discussion
For both the expansion and contraction scenarios, the changes to climate change impacts (including iLUC) and water impacts were less than would be assumed from current production as determined using attributional LCA. However, the opposite was true for all other impact categories, indicating trade-offs across the impact categories. Climate change impacts under both scenarios were relatively minor because these were largely offset by iLUC. Similarly, under the contraction scenario, water impacts were dominated by indirect impacts associated with regional crops. A sensitivity analysis showed that the results were sufficiently robust to indicate the quantum of changes that could be expected.
Conclusions
A complex array of changes in technologies, production regions and related crops were required to model the environmental impacts of a gross change in cotton production. Australian cotton lint production provides an example of legislation constraining the direct water impacts of production, leading to a contrast between impacts estimated by attributional and consequential LCA. This model demonstrated that indirect products and processes are important contributors to the environmental impacts of Australian cotton lint.
This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.
Similar content being viewed by others
Data availability
Inventory data generated or analysed during this study are included in the supplementary materials.
References
ABS (2016) Statistical Area level 4 (SA4). In: Aust. Stat. Geogr. Stand. Vol. 1 - Main Struct. Gt. Cap. City Stat. Areas. https://www.abs.gov.au/ausstats/abs@.nsf/Lookup/by Subject/1270.0.55.001~July 2016~Main Features~Statistical Area Level 4 (SA4)~10016. Accessed 31 Aug 2020
ABS (2017a) Agricultural Commodities, Australia, 2015–16 - 7121.0. Australia Bureau of Statistics (ABS), Canberra, Australia
ABS (2017b) Water Use on Australian Farms, 2015–16 - 4618.0. Australia Bureau of Statistics (ABS), Canberra, Australia
ABS (2018a) Agricultural Commodities, Australia, 2016–17 - 7121.0. Australia Bureau of Statistics (ABS), Canberra, Australia
ABS (2018b) Water Use on Australian Farms, 2016–17 - 4618.0. Australia Bureau of Statistics (ABS), Canberra, Australia
ABS (2019a) Agricultural Commodities, Australia, 2017–18 - 7121.0. Australia Bureau of Statistics (ABS), Canberra, Australia
ABS (2019b) Water Use on Australian Farms, 2017–18 - 4618.0. Australia Bureau of Statistics (ABS), Canberra, Australia
ALCAS (2015) The Australian Life Cycle Inventory Database Initiative: agriculture. The Australian Life Cycle Assessment Society (ALCAS). http://www.auslci.com.au/index.php/datasets/Agriculture, Australia
Antille DL (2018) Evaluation of fertigation applied to furrow and overhead irrigated cotton grown in a black vertosol in southern Queensland, Australia. Appl Eng Agric 34:197–211. https://doi.org/10.13031/aea.12519
Argent R (2016) Inland water: water flows and levels. Australian Government Department of the Environment and Energy (DEE), Australia. https://soe.environment.gov.au/assessment-summary/inland-waters/state-and-trends-inland-water-flows-and-levels
Australian Cotton Shipper Association (2020) About Australian cotton: quality. Australian Cotton Shippers Association, Australia. http://austcottonshippers.com.au/about-australian-cotton
Booth Associates (2014) Independent Southern NSW irrigated crop options analysis. SunRice, Leeton, New South Wales
Chapagain AK, Hoekstra AY, Savenije HHG, Gautam R (2006) The water footprint of cotton consumption: an assessment of the impact of worldwide consumption of cotton products on the water resources in the cotton producing countries. Ecol Econ 60:186–203. https://doi.org/10.1016/J.ECOLECON.2005.11.027
Chaudhary A, Kastner T (2016) Land use biodiversity impacts embodied in international food trade. Glob Environ Chang 38:195–204. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.gloenvcha.2016.03.013
Chen G, Baillie C (2009) Development of a framework and tool to assess on-farm energy uses of cotton production. Energy Convers Manag 50:1256–1263
Commonwealth of Australia (2013) National Inventory Report (NIR) 2008: volume 1. Australian National Greenhouse Accounts. Department of Climate Change and Energy Efficiency (DCCEE), Australia
Commonwealth of Australia (2017) National Inventory Report 2017, Volume 1. Australian Government, Department of the Environment and Energy, Canberra, Australia
Constable GA, Bange MP (2015) The yield potential of cotton (Gossypium hirsutum L.). F Crop Res 182:98–106
Cotton Inc (2016) LCA update of cotton fibre and fabric life cycle inventory. Cotton Incorporated
Cotton Info (2015) Evaluating furrow irrigation performance. Cotton Info, Australia. https://www.cottoninfo.com.au/sites/default/files/documents/Furrow Irrigation_4.pdf
CRDC (2017a) Cotton growing practices 2016. Cotton Research and Development Corporation (CRDC), Australia. http://www.insidecotton.com/xmlui/bitstream/handle/1/4429/2016%20Cotton%20Practices%20Survey%20REPORT.pdf?sequence=4&isAllowed=y
CRDC (2017b) Cotton Growing Practices 2016: findings of CRDC’s survey of cotton growers. Cotton Research and Development Corporation (CRDC). http://www.insidecotton.com/xmlui/bitstream/handle/1/4429/2016%20Cotton%20Practices%20Survey%20REPORT.pdf?sequence=4&isAllowed=y
CRDC (2018) Grower Survey 2017. Cotton Research and Development Corporation (CRDC). http://www.insidecotton.com/xmlui/bitstream/handle/1/4541/2017CRDC Grower Survey Report.pdf?sequence=5&isAllowed=y
CRDC (2019) Grower survey 2018. Cotton Research and Development Corporation (CRDC). https://www.crdc.com.au/sites/default/files/pdf/CRDCGrowerSurveyReport2018.pdf
De Falco F, Cocca M, Avella M, Thompson RC (2020) Microfiber release to water, via laundering, and to air, via everyday use: a comparison between polyester clothing with differing textile parameters. ACS Appl Mater Interfaces 54:3288–3296. https://doi.org/10.1021/acs.est.9b06892
Eady S, Grant T, Cruypenninck H et al (2014) AusAgLCI - A Life Cycle Inventory database for Australian agriculture. Rural Industries Research & Development Corporation (RIRDC)
Ekvall T (2019) Attributional and consequential life cycle assessment. In: Bastante-Ceca MJ, Fuentes-Bargues JL, Hufnagel L et al (eds) Sustainability Assessment at the 21st century. IntechOpen, London, pp 1–21
Falkenmark M (1995) Land-water linkages: a synopsis. FAO L Water Bull 1:15–17
FAO (2019) FAOSTAT- Crops. Food and Agriculture Organisation of the United Nations (FAO)
Foley JP, Sandell GR, Szabo PM et al (2015) Improving energy efficiency on Australian irrigated cotton farms. National Centre for Engineering in Agriculture, University of Southern Queensland, Toowoomba, Australia. https://www.cottoninfo.com.au/sites/default/files/documents/EnergyBenchmarkingReport_June2015.pdf
GFA and BCG (2017) Pulse of the fashion industry - executive summary. Global Fashion Agenda & The Boston Consulting Group. https://www.globalfashionagenda.com/wp-content/uploads/2017/05/Pulse-of-the-Fashion-Industry_Executive-summary.pdf
Goesch T, Donoghoe M, Hughes N (2019) Snapshot of Australian water markets. Australian Bureau of Agricultural and Resource Economics and Sciences, Australia. https://www.agriculture.gov.au/sites/default/files/abares/documents/SnapshotOfAustralianWaterMarkets_v1.0.0.pdf
Gollnow S, Lundie S, Moore AD et al (2014) Carbon footprint of milk production from dairy cows in Australia. Int Dairy J 37:31–38. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.idairyj.2014.02.005
Grace P, Shcherbak I, Macdonald B et al (2016) Emission factors for estimating fertiliser-induced nitrous oxide emissions from clay soils in Australia’s irrigated cotton industry. Soil Res 54:598–603. https://doi.org/10.1071/SR16091
Grafton R, Horne J (2014) Water markets in the Murray-Darling Basin. In: Global water: issues and insights, 2014th edn. Australian National University Press, pp 61–71. http://press.anu.edu.au
Gupta M, Hughes N (2018a) Future scenarios for the southern Murray–Darling Basin water market. Australian Bureau of Agricultural and Resource Economics and Sciences (ABARES), Australia. http://data.daff.gov.au/data/warehouse/9aaw/2018/FutureScenariosSMDBWaterMarket/FutureScenariosSMDBWaterMarket_v1.0.0.pdf
Gupta M, Hughes N (2018b) Shift from rice to cotton production in NSW Murrumbidgee region. Agric Commod 8:74–76
Hedayati M, Brock PM, Nachimuthu G, Schwenke G (2019) Farm-level strategies to reduce the life cycle greenhouse gas emissions of cotton production: an Australian perspective. J Clean Prod 212:974–985. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jclepro.2018.11.190
Henry B, Laitala K, Klepp IG (2019) Microfibres from apparel and home textiles: prospects for including microplastics in environmental sustainability assessment. Sci Total Environ 652:483–494. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.scitotenv.2018.10.166
Huijbregts MAJ, Steinmann ZJN, Elshout PMF et al (2016) ReCiPe 2016: a harmonized life cycle impact assessment method at midpoint and endpoint level Report I: characterization. National Institute for public Health and the Environment. https://pdfs.semanticscholar.org/b70a/eb1db5636d50b32da5ec66e9cba18bae65df.pdf?_ga=2.214285840.6850109.1582761525-1603446005.1582761525
IPCC (2006) Guidelines for National Greenhouse Gas Inventories, Volume 4. Agriculture, Forestry and Other Land Use. IPCC, Hayama, Kanagawa, Japan
IPCC (2015) Climate change 2014: synthesis report. Contribution of Working Groups I, II, III to the Fifth Assessment Report of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change
ISO (2006a) ISO 14040: 2006 - Environmental management - life cycle assessment - principles and framework. International Organisation for Standardisation (ISO), Geneva, Switzerland
ISO (2006b) ISO 14044:2006 - Environmental management - life cycle assessment - requirements and guidelines. International Organisation for Standardisation (ISO), Geneva, Switzerland
ISO (2014) ISO 14046:2014. Environmental management - water footprint - principles, requirements and guidelines. International Organisation for Standardisation (ISO). https://www.iso.org/standard/43263.html
ISO (2018) ISO 14067:2018 - Greenhouse gases - carbon footprint of products - requirements and guidelines for quantification. International Organisation for Standardisation (ISO), Geneva, Switzerland
Kastner T, Erb KH, Nonhebel S (2011) International wood trade and forest change: a global analysis. Glob Environ Chang. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.gloenvcha.2011.05.003
Maraseni TN, Cockfield G, Maroulis J (2010) An assessment of greenhouse gas emissions: implications for the Australian cotton industry. J Agric Sci. https://doi.org/10.1017/S002185960999058X
Maraseni TN, Mushtaq S, Reardon-Smith K (2012) Climate change, water security and the need for integrated policy development: the case of on-farm infrastructure investment in the Australian irrigation sector. Environ Res Lett. https://doi.org/10.1088/1748-9326/7/3/034006
Mayer AL, Kauppi PE, Angelstam PK et al (2005) Importing timber, exporting ecological impact. Science 308:359 LP – 360. https://doi.org/10.1126/science.1109476
Meyfroidt P, Lambin EF, Erb KH, Hertel TW (2013) Globalization of land use: distant drivers of land change and geographic displacement of land use. Curr Opin Environ Sustain 5:438–444
Meyfroidt P, Rudel TK, Lambin EF (2010) Forest transitions, trade, and the global displacement of land use. Proc Natl Acad Sci U S A. https://doi.org/10.1073/pnas.1014773107
National Water Commission (2011) Water markets in Australia: a short history. National Water Commission (NWC), Canberra, Australia. https://apo.org.au/sites/default/files/resource-files/2011/12/apo-nid27438-1224671.pdf
NSW DPI (2019) Benchmarking water productivity of Australian irrigated cotton. Department of Primary Industries, New South Wales, Australia. https://www.dpi.nsw.gov.au/__data/assets/pdf_file/0006/1185288/Benchmarking-Water-Productivity-of-Australian-Cotton.pdf
OECD, FAO (2020) OECD-FAO Agricultural Outlook 2020–2029. OECD. https://doi.org/10.1787/19991142
Pfister S, Koehler A, Hellweg S (2009) Assessing the environmental impacts of freshwater consumption in LCA. Environ Sci Technol 43:4098–4104. https://doi.org/10.1021/es802423e
Pfister S, Bayer P, Koehler A, Hellweg S (2011) Environmental impacts of water use in global crop production: hotspots and trade-offs with land use. Environ Sci Technol 45:5761–5768. https://doi.org/10.1021/es1041755
Plevin RJ, Delucchi MA, Creutzig F (2014) Using attributional life cycle assessment to estimate climate-change mitigation benefits misleads policy makers. J Ind Ecol 18:73–83. https://doi.org/10.1111/jiec.12074
Powell JW, Welsh JM, Eckard RJ (2017) An irrigated cotton farm emissions case study in NSW, Australia. Agric Syst 158:61–67
Pré-Consultants (2020) SimaPro 9.1 Software. Pré-Consultants, Amersfoort, Netherlands
Quantis (2020) Plastic Leak Project - methodological guidelines. Quantis sustainability. https://quantis-intl.com/report/the-plastic-leak-project-guidelines/
Ridoutt BG, Pfister S (2010) A revised approach to water footprinting to make transparent the impacts of consumption and production on global freshwater scarcity. Glob Environ Chang 20:113–120. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.gloenvcha.2009.08.003
Roth GA, Harris GB, Gillies MC et al (2013) Water-use efficiency and productivity trends in Australian irrigated cotton: a review. Crop Pasture Sci 64:1033–1048. https://doi.org/10.1071/CP13315
Sandin G, Roos S, Johansson M (2019) Environmental impact of textile fibers - what we know and what we don’t know. Fiber bible part 2
Schmidt JH, Weidema BP, Brandão M (2015) A framework for modelling indirect land use changes in Life Cycle Assessment. J Clean Prod 99:230–238. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jclepro.2015.03.013
Schwartz D (2019) Independent Senator questions whether driest continent on the planet should grow, export cotton. The Australian Broadcasting Corporation (ABC). https://www.abc.net.au/news/rural/2019-02-04/senator-questions-whether-australia-should-grow-export-cotton/10776964
Scott F (2015) North East gross margin. Department of Primary Industries. New South Wales, New South Wales, Australia. http://archive.dpi.nsw.gov.au/content/agriculture/gross-margin-budgets/winter-crops
Searchinger T, Heimlich R, Houghton R et al (2008) Use of U.S. croplands for biofuels increases greenhouse gases through emissions from land-use change. Science 319:1238–1240
Shah P, Bansal A, Singh RK (2018) Life cycle assessment of organic, BCI and conventional cotton : a comparative study of cotton cultivation practices in India. In: Design. Springer International Publishing, pp 67–77
Simmons AT, Murray A, Brock PM et al (2019) Life cycle inventories for the Australian grains sector. Crop Pasture Sci 70:575–584. https://doi.org/10.1071/CP18412
Tan DKY, Brock PM, Hulugalle NR, Quigley G (2013) Life cycle assessment of cotton-corn farming systems in the Namoi Valley, Australia. In: The 8th Life Cycle Conference - Pathways to Greening Global Markets. Online - Available at http://citeseerx.ist.psu.edu/viewdoc/download?doi=10.1.1.663.8776&rep=rep1&type=pdf
Textile Exchange (2020) Preferred Fiber & Materials Market report 2020. Textile Exchange. https://textileexchange.org/wp-content/uploads/2020/06/Textile-Exchange_Preferred-Fiber-Material-Market-Report_2020.pdf
Tiedje JM, Sexstone AJ, Parkin TB, Revsbech NP (1984) Anaerobic processes in soil. Plant Soil 76:197–212. https://doi.org/10.1007/BF02205580
Troldahl D, Dunn B, Fowler J, et al (2018) Rice growing guide 2018. NSW Department of Primary Industries (DPI), Online - Available at https://www.dpi.nsw.gov.au/__data/assets/pdf_file/0007/829330/RGG-accessible-22Aug2018.pdf
USDA (2020) Table 06A: Cotton Supply and Distribution by Country 2018/19. United States Department of Agriculture. https://apps.fas.usda.gov/psdonline/reportHandler.ashx?fileName=Table06A:CottonSupplyandDistributionbyCountry2014/2015&reportId=855&templateId=3&format=html
van der Sluijs MHJ (2004) Quality issues for Australian cotton from the mill perspective. CSIRO Textile and Fibre Technology & Cotton CRC, Online - Available at https://publications.csiro.au/rpr/download?pid=procite:36c621a5-9d1e-4222-aca7-b62e7aba3ebf&dsid=DS1
van der Sluijs MHJ (2017) Improving the quality of Australian cotton during processing. Deakin University. Online - Available at https://pdfs.semanticscholar.org/4b2d/803c8233876cd5b3c57373aa7ab43e8ffef0.pdf
van der Sluijs R, Pageot R, Nahi O (2017) Quantity and quality of cotton gin trash produced by Australian gins. Aust Cottongrower 39:55–56
van der Sluijs R (2018) Managing quality to maintain Australia’s premium status (progress report to CRDC). Cotton Research and Development Corporation (CRDC), Australia
Weidema B, Ekvall T, Heijungs R (2009) Guidelines for application of deepened and broadened LCA: Deliverable D18 of work package 5 of the CALCAS project. ENEA, Rome
Wernet G, Bauer C, Steubing B et al (2016) The ecoinvent database version 3 (part I): overview and methodology. Int J Life Cycle Assess 21:1218–1230. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11367-016-1087-8
Wiedemann S, McGahan E, Murphy C et al (2015) Environmental impacts and resource use of Australian beef and lamb exported to the USA determined using life cycle assessment. J Clean Prod 94:67–75. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jclepro.2015.01.073
Wiedemann S, Simmons A, Watson K, Biggs L (2018) Effect of methodological choice on the estimated impacts of wool production and the significance for LCA-based rating systems. Int J Life Cycle Assess 24:848–855. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11367-018-1538-5
Yeates SJ, Strickland GR, Grundy PR (2014) Can sustainable cotton production systems be developed for tropical northern Australia. Crop Pasture Sci 64:1127–1140. https://doi.org/10.1071/CP13220
Zehetmeier M, Gandorfer M, Heibenhuber A, de Boer IJM (2012) Modelling GHG emissions of dairy cow production systems differing in milk yield and breed—the impact of uncertainty. In: 8th International Conference on Life Cycle Assessment in the Agri-Food Sector (LCA Food 2012), Saint Malo, France. INRA, Rennes, France. pp 1–4
Acknowledgements
Allan Williams (CRDC) is acknowledged for his review and input to drafts of this manuscript. Also, we thank the anonymous reviewers who provided constructive feedback during the review process.
Funding
This research was funded by the Cotton Research & Development Corporation (CRDC, grant number CRDC1911) matching research and development funding from the Australian Government.
Author information
Authors and Affiliations
Corresponding author
Additional information
Communicated by Sarah Jane McLaren.
Publisher's Note
Springer Nature remains neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.
Supplementary information
Below is the link to the electronic supplementary material.
Rights and permissions
About this article
Cite this article
Nguyen, Q.V., Wiedemann, S.G., Simmons, A. et al. The environmental consequences of a change in Australian cotton lint production. Int J Life Cycle Assess 26, 2321–2338 (2021). https://doi.org/10.1007/s11367-021-01994-y
Received:
Accepted:
Published:
Issue Date:
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s11367-021-01994-y