Synthetic Turf – Not Supported by Science as a Safe Solution

"None of this fits with Vancouver’s ambition to be the Greenest City, or with the overarching need to protect the environment and deal with the climate emergency. There are climate impacts to consider: synthetic turf is a Lifecycle GHG Emitter of 108.2 tons CO2 equivalent over 10 years compared to a grass sport field that acts like a carbon sink to remove and store 16.9 tons CO2 equivalent over the same period. In addition, living grass can remove pollutants from the air, cool the playing surface and air above, and filter rainwater, all of which help in the fight against climate change."

Rebekah ThomsonJuly 19, 2019Environment, Safety, Human health, Climate change, Stewardship

Letter from the Martha's Vineyard Environmental Educators Alliance

"As they grow into adults we hope these students will keep this love for the Island close in their hearts and let it weigh heavily on the decisions they face as future community leaders. Change is inevitable. But change of any particular sort is not... In the end it is often money that rules the day. Ironic and shortsighted, when looking many years down the road, artificial turf is a costly financial choice, not to mention health and environmental one."

Rebekah ThomsonJune 5, 2019Environment, Plastic pollution, Stewardship

Letter from Mass Audubon to MVRHS Leadership

“Mass Audubon opposes the use of synthetic turf for outdoor sports and activities on the High School playing fields and believes grass playing fields are a better alternative. Grass maintains a natural temperature, reduces rain runoff, filters stormwater, and when cared for properly, is safe for people and nature.”

Letters & Links