Biodiversity
Climate
Water
Not so rosy flowers
You don't look a gift horse in the mouth, says the old saying, but maybe it's still appropriate to examine the footprint of imported cut flowers as a gift? Because, unfortunately, it is much more carbon intensive than many other consumer goods.
For me, this story began when I met my husband, whose behavior habits regarding cut flowers had been shaped by Vigala Sass, who visited the village in high school. The connoisseur was disturbed by the cut given to him by the school. This fact has shaped our family habits - forest plants with roots, bushes and potted flowers instead of cut flowers. Because changing the world always starts with changing your own behavior, right?
When my trash surfing relative showed me the photos they took of tulips, roses and other flowers at the trash cans of Estonian self-service stores after Mother's Day or Women's Day, I felt sick. I collected some more interesting indicators in the hope that someone else will delve into the problem of cut flowers arriving by plane and lasting seven days.
International problems of Flower sea
Ros Davidson writes on the ideas.ted.com website that episodic global high-speed flower trade amplifies the ecological footprint of the sector - ideally, flowers reach the vase from the field in 3-5 days. For Colombian producers whose farms are located near Bogotá's international airport, one day the value of flowers is 15%. So the flowers don't travel over land.
Many flowers are grown in high altitude, industrial greenhouses (to control disease, pests and humidity) and flower farms can be larger than 200 hectares. Floriculture uses a lot of water and drains nutrients. some critics of Davidson's claims claim that drought-stricken Lake Naivasha in Kenya was in a situation where half of the lake's water was pumped for use in greenhouses for the flower industry.
Nor is international transport the only carbon-increasing link in the flower industry. The Ideas Ted website also mentions greenhouse heating. Domestic flower production can also generate large CO2 emissions, because production is electricity-intensive, notes Dr. David Bek from Coventry University. Far from the strong sun of the equator, more chemicals may be needed for the flowers to bloom, leading to large-scale emissions (after all, chemicals are produced and transported) and also a threat to water quality.
In fact, flowers grown in cooler countries such as the US can have a plant footprint of more than 5.5 times that of equatorial countries, says Melanie Dürr, global product manager for flowers and plants at Fairtrade International. But as the use of wind and solar energy increases, the numbers needed may decrease, Bek adds.
Footprint associated with flower purchase
Flowers from the Farm (FF) describes the carbon footprint of cut flowers. Namely, in her master's thesis, Rebecca Swinn compared the amounts of C02 eq generated during the cultivation and transport of seven flowers on the counter of British retailers. Rebecca's thesis treats sustainability more broadly and adds water and fertilizer use and working conditions as concerns for growing cut flowers. This is the first study to compare the footprint of bouquets made from flowers from different countries.
FF writes that Dutch lilies have the highest emissions, followed by Kenyan gypsum flower, Dutch roses and Kenyan roses. Lilies, snapdragons and inca lilies grown by British florists have a smaller footprint. Footprint transportation, heating and electricity use (including refrigerators). In short, an imported mixed bunch produces ten times more emissions than a UK-grown mixed bunch.
Although there are no attention-grabbing studies of the ecological footprint of Estonian cut flowers that have been done, I believe that the results of the UK can be continuously applied to the Estonian context. Rebecca Swinn's source of research behind the concept of lower sugar alternatives. Substitution is currently what, for example, when considering the climate effects of different types of nutrition, it seems that such an approach could also be relevant for flowers.
Emissions per stem
Rebecca Swinn took a comparison unit with a mid-priced bouquet of roses, lilies and plaster of paris and compares it to a mixed bouquet of British flowers of the same value. Emissions per stem were:
Dutch lily: 3478 kg CO2
Kenya gypsum flower: 3211 kg CO2
Dutch rose: 2437 kg CO2
Kenya rose: 2407 kg CO2
Domestic flowers, or in the context of this study, British flowers:
British lily: 0.819 kg CO2 (about 1/4 of Dutch lily)
British snapdragons (or any outdoor, locally grown flower): 0.114 kg CO2
British inca lily: 0.052 kg CO2
In general, emissions saved by outdoor cultivation in Kenya are offset by fertilizer use and air transport emissions. Dutch greenhouse-grown flowers are carbon-intensive due to highly automated systems and several inefficient heating and lighting systems, as well as several hundreds of kilometers of transport.
Pick local, emissions per bundle
Flowers from the Farm (FF) points out that Rebecca Swinn's research did not have direct access to the background of shopping mall bouquets, used photographs and perhaps mistakenly assumed that one flower head equaled one stem. As a result, the stems of the lilies were mistakenly counted as three stems instead of three open flower heads on one stem. Therefore, the emissions of flower bouquets have been recalculated as follows:
5 Kenya Roses + 3 Holland Lilies + 3 Kenya Gypsum Flowers - 31.132 kg Co2
Dutch Rose + 3 Dutch Lilies + 3 Kenya Gypsum Flowers - 32.252 kg CO2
Native Lion's Jaw + 3 Native Lilies + 3 Native Inca Lilies - 3.287 kg CO2
A mixed bunch of 15 stems grown and sold locally (eg Booths supermarket in Lancashire) - 1.71kg CO2
There is little difference between bouquets grown in the Netherlands and Kenya, but the claim that the carbon footprint of Kenyan roses is lower than that of the Netherlands seems to be true. However, the carbon footprint of British flowers, using indoor lilies and calla lilies, is around 10% of that of imported bouquets. The CO2 emissions of a mixed bouquet grown outdoors are estimated to be even lower - 5% of that of a Dutch or Kenyan bouquet.
To understand the context of carbon footprints, some comparative data can be found for those interested in Mike Berners-Lee's book "How Bad are Bananas? The carbon footprint of everything“:
banana – 0.08 CO2 kg (footprint of 1 kg of bananas is 0.48),
Christmas turkey with vegetables for six people - 19 CO2 kg,
flight from London to Paris in economy class - 58 CO2 kg per passenger.
We sell digital flowers
In order to draw attention to the footprint of imported flowers, to emphasize the beauty of Estonian azaleas and to offer a double alternative to those who want to surprise their loved one, friend or partner with blooming beauty, the Nature Fund will sell digital flowers. The selection includes digital lawn dolls, foal hooves, courier dolls, memory heads and daisies. With this move, we don't want to say that you can't give real flowers - you can, but considering the environment, it's better to give preference to domestic flowers.
Sometimes, however, the flower recipient is far away or knowing that someone is thinking of them is more important than a physical bouquet, and then a digital bouquet can be a suitable alternative. The Nature Fund implements projects that contribute to the promotion of biodiversity with the proceeds from the sale of digital lawn dolls, foal lockers, etc. For example, a cooperation project with landowners is being launched to bring more life to the infrastructures. Other Nature Fund projects can be found at www.loodushoiufond.ee.
Author: Pille Ligi
Related posts
Biodiversity
Climate
Community
Forest
Water
Agriculture
Science not dogma
Peter Kareiva, chief scientist and vice president of The Nature Conservation, emphasizes that the old ways of protecting nature, which many conservation biologists still practice, try to keep nature separate from people. This is wrong, Kareiva claims. In 2018, he published the book Effective Conservation Science: Data, Not Dogma with Michelle Marvier.
Conservation biology should be an interdisciplinary science, Soulé described in his 1985 essay. In addition to the natural sciences, it should draw on the social sciences and be a mix of art and science, because we often lacked quantitative evidence on what to do in conservation management. Soulé proposed four core values on which conservation biology should be based.
These original four values were: diversity of organisms is good, ecological complexity is good, evolution is good, and biodiversity has intrinsic, or intrinsic value, regardless of its usefulness to humans. These principles have been followed until the early 2000s, when Peter Kareiva questioned the success of conservation biology so far.
As the title suggests, the authors are critical of traditional conservation, which is based on beliefs but rarely supported by empirical observational data. In the introductory chapter, Kareiva and his collaborators explain how conservation abandoned scientific standards to support conservation advocacy.
"Nature protection" in the sense of erecting an imaginary fence around a natural or protected zone is an idea of the 20th century. Although such an approach may be appropriate in some special cases, large-scale implementation does not give meaningful results. This is recognized by both Kareiva, Marvier and their associates. . Michael Jenkins, who has worked for a long time with indigenous people in different regions, adds that the creation of such a protected area is often not ethical either. He emphasizes that traditional rural communities have been part of the landscape for a very long time and maintain this species richness. Similarly, there are certain areas in Estonia where, alongside people and undisturbed by activities, protected species have lived.
Kareiva and Marvier call for the scientific community to address this failure, as the consequences of inaccurate assessment of perceived environmental problems have real impacts on land, water and ocean management. Solutions to such environmental problems cannot be found if they are obscured by baseless beliefs about the source of these problems.
