1 July 2026
From Fibre to Filter: The Case for Carbon-Negative Wool
A Whitepaper on Biogenic Carbon, Regenerative Farming, and the True Climate Footprint of Lanaco’s EcoStatic® Filter Media
Foreword
For over a decade, wool has been assigned an outsized carbon burden. Life cycle assessments (LCAs) have routinely treated sheep farming as a one-way emissions source: methane out, nothing back, placing wool among the most carbon-intensive fibres on Earth. These assessments have shaped global sustainability indices, corporate procurement decisions, and public perception. They have also been fundamentally incomplete.
This whitepaper presents a corrected picture. Drawing on peer-reviewed science, ISO-compliant carbon accounting frameworks, verified farm-level data, and Lanaco’s own product carbon footprint analysis, we demonstrate that wool, when understood within its full biogenic context and sourced from well-managed landscapes, is not merely a lower-carbon alternative to synthetic filtration media. It can be carbon negative.
The implications extend well beyond a single product. They challenge an entrenched analytical framework that has systematically advantaged fossil-derived materials over natural fibres, and they point toward a future in which air filtration, one of the built environment’s most ubiquitous and energy-intensive functions, becomes a vehicle for climate repair rather than climate harm.
Table of Contents
1. Executive Summary
2. The Methane Question: Context and Complexity
3. Where Conventional Carbon Accounting Goes Wrong
4. The Biogenic Carbon Framework: A Paradigm Shift
5. The Farm as Carbon Engine: Regenerative Agriculture in Practice
6. From Paddock to Product: The EcoStatic® Carbon Footprint
7. The Synthetic Fibre Comparison: Correcting the Higg Index Bias
8. A Roadmap to Carbon-Negative Filtration
9. Conclusions and Call to Action
10. References
11. Appendices
1. Executive Summary
The global air filtration market consumes billions of square metres of synthetic, petroleum-derived media annually. Every filter manufactured from polypropylene or polyester draws on finite fossil carbon, sheds microplastics during use, and terminates its life in landfill or incineration. The carbon footprint of these products is locked in at the point of extraction and can only be managed, never reversed.
Lanaco’s EcoStatic® filter media offers a structurally different proposition. Made primarily from New Zealand wool, EcoStatic delivers equivalent or superior filtration performance (MERV 11 and MERV 13 ratings) at lower air resistance, longer service life, and zero microplastic emissions. More significantly, the fibre at the heart of the product grows through photosynthesis, cycles carbon through a living biological system, and, when sourced from regenerative farms, returns more carbon to the soil than it releases to the atmosphere.
Key findings presented in this whitepaper:
• Conventional wool LCAs overstate emissions intensity by up to several orders of magnitude by ignoring biogenic carbon flows mandated under ISO 14067:2018. The average published figure of 24.1 kg CO₂e/kg greasy wool drops to as low as −0.4 kg CO₂e/kg when biogenic carbon, particularly manure carbon retention in soil, is properly accounted for (Blignaut, Swan & Blignaut, 2026).
• Methane from ruminants is biogenic and cyclical, not equivalent to fossil methane. Enteric methane represents only 5.2% of total carbon ingested by sheep. It persists in the atmosphere for approximately 13 years before being broken down and recycled through photosynthesis back into pasture — a fundamentally different climate dynamic from the liberation of geologically sequestered fossil carbon.
• Regenerative farm management transforms the emissions equation. Lake Hawea Station in New Zealand — one possible Lanaco wool supplier — sequesters 4,958 tonnes of CO₂e against gross emissions of 2,516 tonnes CO₂e, achieving independently certified climate-positive status. Strategic native tree planting, soil carbon building, holistic grazing, and biodiversity restoration create a system in which more carbon is drawn down than released.
• EcoStatic® can be manufactured as a net carbon-negative product. Lanaco’s product carbon footprint analysis demonstrates that when wool is sourced from farms practising verified sequestration, the MERV 11 filter achieves −0.67 kg CO₂e/kg and the MERV 13 achieves −0.88 kg CO₂e/kg at the customer gate, before any in-use energy savings are considered.
• The Higg Materials Sustainability Index (MSI), the most widely used textile sustainability benchmark, systematically disadvantages natural fibres relative to fossil-derived synthetics. This bias has been formally challenged by regulators in Norway, the Netherlands, and the EU, and is increasingly unsupported by the scientific evidence base.
• Lanaco is pursuing a 2030 target of sourcing all fibre from accredited carbon-zero farms, supported by regenerative farming partnerships, methane-reduction technologies, 100% renewable energy manufacturing, and has already developed a fully industrially compostable, biobased filter.
This whitepaper invites building owners, HVAC specifiers, procurement officers, sustainability leaders, and policymakers to re-examine what they think they know about wool, methane, and climate, and to consider that the most powerful air filtration solution may also be the most powerful climate solution hiding in plain sight.
2. The Methane Question: Context and Complexity
2.1 Methane’s Role in the Climate System
Methane (CH₄) is responsible for approximately one-third of observed global warming to date. Its short-term warming potential is roughly 80 times that of carbon dioxide over a 20-year horizon, making it a high-priority target for near-term climate mitigation. Humans emit approximately 380 million tonnes of methane annually from a range of sources spanning energy production, agriculture, waste management, and land use.
At COP30 in Belém, Brazil, the United Kingdom and ten partner nations endorsed near-zero methane targets for fossil fuels under the Global Methane Pledge, which aims for a 30% reduction in methane emissions from 2020 levels. This political momentum reflects a growing scientific consensus: reducing methane emissions is the single fastest lever available to slow the rate of warming in the next two decades.
2.2 The Food System as Methane Source
Project Drawdown and the Global Methane Hub have mapped the food system as the largest human-caused methane source, responsible for over 210 million tonnes per year; more than 50% of total anthropogenic emissions. The principal sources include:
| Source | Estimated Contribution |
| Enteric fermentation (cattle) | ~28% of all human-caused methane |
| Municipal solid waste (food waste) | ~60% of landfill methane (~70 Mt total) |
| Biomass burning (crop residue) | ~17 Mt/year |
| Flooded rice cultivation | ~30 Mt/year |
These figures are important context. They demonstrate that ruminant methane is a significant contributor to the global methane budget, a fact this whitepaper does not dispute. What we dispute is how that methane is characterised, accounted for, and attributed at the product level, particularly for wool.
2.3 Not All Methane Is Created Equal
The critical distinction that conventional carbon accounting has failed to make, and that the science now demands we make, is between fossil methane and biogenic methane.
Fossil methane is released when geological reservoirs of carbon that have been sequestered underground for millions of years are breached through extraction, processing, and combustion of oil, gas, and coal. This represents a net addition of carbon to the active atmospheric system. Once released, it increases the total stock of carbon in the biosphere-atmosphere system permanently on any human-relevant timescale.
Biogenic methane from ruminants follows a fundamentally different pathway. It originates from carbon that was already in the atmosphere as CO₂, was captured by plants through photosynthesis, consumed by sheep as pasture, and converted to CH₄ during enteric fermentation. That methane persists in the atmosphere for approximately 12–13 years before being oxidised back to CO₂ and water vapour, whereupon it is available for uptake by vegetation once again.
This is not a theoretical distinction. It is a cyclical flow of carbon through the biosphere, not a one-way transfer from the lithosphere. For a stable or declining sheep flock, as exists in New Zealand, where sheep numbers have fallen from 70 million in 1982 to approximately 25 million today, the stock of biogenic methane in the atmosphere is not increasing. The warming effect of ruminant methane in such systems is approximately zero on a flow basis, because the rate of methane destruction equals or exceeds the rate of emission.
The fundamental error of conventional wool LCA is treating biogenic methane as if it were fossil methane, as if the carbon in a sheep’s breath had been pumped from beneath the earth’s crust, rather than recycled from the sky above the paddock.
2.4 The GWP Problem
The standard metric for comparing greenhouse gases, Global Warming Potential over 100 years (GWP100), assigns methane a factor of 27 relative to CO₂ (IPCC AR6). This metric was designed to compare pulse emissions of different gases on a common scale and serves useful policy functions. However, it has a well-documented limitation: it treats short-lived climate pollutants (like methane, with its ~13-year atmospheric lifetime) as if they were equivalent to long-lived gases (like CO₂, which persists for centuries to millennia).
The alternative metric GWP* (pronounced “GWP-star”), developed by Allen et al. (2018) at the University of Oxford, accounts for the different atmospheric behaviour of short- and long-lived gases. Under GWP*, a constant or declining rate of methane emission produces no additional warming, because the atmospheric stock is not increasing. Only an increasing rate of methane emission produces warming.
When GWP* is applied to the Swan et al. (2026) case studies, emission intensities for wool production shift dramatically:
| Scenario | GWP100 (kg CO₂e/kg) | GWP* (kg CO₂e/kg) |
| Emissions only (no biogenic credit) | 22.5 | 8.8 |
| 0% manure retention | 13.7 | −0.3 |
| 33.3% manure retention | 6.6 | −7.0 |
| 66.7% manure retention | −0.4 | −14.2 |
Under GWP*, wool production becomes a net carbon sink even at zero manure retention. The choice of metric is not a technicality, it determines whether an entire fibre system is classified as a climate problem or a climate solution.
3. Where Conventional Carbon Accounting Goes Wrong
3.1 Fifteen Years of Incomplete Science
Between 2010 and 2024, fourteen peer-reviewed life cycle assessments of wool production were published and indexed in the Scopus database. Collectively, they generated 102 observations of greenhouse gas emission intensity, with values ranging from 1.1 to 61.4 kg CO₂e per kilogram of greasy wool (interquartile range: 16.3–29.5; average: 24.1).
Every single one found wool production to be a net emissions source.
Every single one ignored biogenic carbon flows.
This is not because biogenic carbon is scientifically contested. It is because the governing standards of ISO 14040 and ISO 14044 do not contain the words fossil or biogenic. Practitioners, following these standards faithfully, had no mandate to distinguish between carbon cycling through a living ecosystem and carbon liberated from geological storage. The result was a systematic analytical framework that treated a sheep’s paddock like a petrochemical refinery.
3.2 The Impacts of Ecoinvent
These fourteen studies do not sit in isolation. Their results feed into global LCA databases, most notably Ecoinvent, the dominant background database used in commercial and academic LCA worldwide. Ecoinvent’s global average emission factor for greasy wool is 20.05 kg CO₂e/kg. This figure, in turn, is embedded in sustainability tools, procurement frameworks, building certification schemes, and corporate carbon accounting methodologies used by thousands of organisations globally.
The problem cascades: an incomplete study generates an inflated figure, which enters a database, which is cited by a tool, which informs a procurement decision, which penalises wool relative to polyester. At no point in this chain does anyone ask whether the sheep ate grass that grew from CO₂ that came from the atmosphere in the first place.
3.3 ISO 14067:2018 Correction
In 2018, the International Organisation for Standardization published ISO 14067: Greenhouse gases — Carbon footprint of products — Requirements and guidelines for quantification. This standard explicitly addresses the gap in ISO 14040/14044 by:
• Defining biogenic carbon (Clause 3.1.7.1) as carbon derived from biomass
• Requiring separate reporting of fossil and biogenic emissions and removals (Clause 6.4.9.2)
• Mandating inclusion of all biomass-related unit processes in the system boundary
• Permitting analysis of biogenic flows within stable farm systems (no land use change) without permanence requirements (Clause 6.4.9.6)
ISO 14067 does not invalidate ISO 14040/14044. It supplements them with a framework that recognises what should have been obvious from the beginning: that a product grown through photosynthesis participates in a carbon cycle that a product extruded from fossil polymers does not.
The Swan et al. (2026) study, discussed in detail in Section 4, is the first published application of ISO 14067 to sheep wool production. Its findings transform the carbon narrative for wool.
4. The Biogenic Carbon Framework: A Paradigm Shift
4.1 How Carbon Flows Through a Sheep System
To understand why biogenic accounting changes everything, it is necessary to trace the journey of a carbon atom through a wool-producing farm.
Step 1: Atmospheric uptake. CO₂ is drawn from the atmosphere by pasture grasses and other vegetation through photosynthesis. Solar energy drives the conversion of inorganic carbon into organic plant matter: cellulose, lignin, proteins, sugars. This is the entry point: every atom of carbon in the system originates in the atmosphere.
Step 2: Ingestion. Sheep consume pasture. The dry matter they eat contains carbon in organic form, along with energy that powers the animal’s metabolism.
Step 3: Digestion and allocation. Inside the ruminant digestive system, ingested carbon is partitioned across multiple destinations:
| Destination | Share of Ingested Carbon |
| Manure | 54.1% |
| Respiration (CO₂) | 22.7% |
| Urine | 7.5% |
| Enteric & manure emissions (CH₄, N₂O) | 5.2% |
| Milk (lactation) | 3.8% |
| Live sales (meat, livestock) | 3.5% |
| Wool | 1.9% |
| Mortalities | 0.9% |
| Lambs at birth | 0.4% |
Source: Blignaut, Swan & Blignaut (2026), six Australian case studies.
The most striking finding is that enteric methane, the emission that dominates every conventional wool LCA, represents only 5.2% of the carbon ingested by the sheep. The largest single destination for ingested carbon is not the atmosphere. It is the ground.
Step 4: Manure and soil: More than half of all carbon consumed by sheep is excreted as manure and deposited on pasture. This manure is not merely waste. In healthy soil ecosystems, it is processed by microbial communities, fungi, dung beetles, and root-associated organisms into stable soil organic carbon. Through root exudates and symbiotic biota, this carbon enters long-term soil carbon pools that persist for decades to centuries.
Step 5: Atmospheric cycling: The methane emitted through enteric fermentation (5.2% of ingested carbon) enters the atmosphere, where it persists for approximately 13 years before being oxidised to CO₂ and water vapour. That CO₂ is then available for uptake by the same, or adjacent, pasture through photosynthesis, completing the cycle.
Step 6: Carbon in products: A small but measurable fraction of ingested carbon is embodied in wool (1.9%) and live animal sales (3.5%). Greasy wool contains approximately 1.71–1.74 kg CO₂e/kg of biogenic carbon at the farm gate: carbon that was atmospheric CO₂ mere months before it became a fibre.
4.2 The Swan et al. Study: Six Case Studies, One Conclusion
Blignaut, Swan & Blignaut (2026) extended the seminal Wiedemann et al. (2016) Australian wool LCA dataset, the most widely cited primary wool LCA study, by incorporating biogenic carbon flows per ISO 14067:2018. Six case studies spanning three agro-ecological zones (NSW High Rainfall, WA Wheat-Sheep, SA Pastoral) were modelled.
Model validation: Excluding biogenic flows, the model reproduced Wiedemann et al.’s results within 0.5% (using equivalent AR4 GWP factors) and within 5.5% using updated AR6 factors — well within published uncertainty bounds. Pearson’s correlation coefficient between the two models: r = +0.92.
Biogenic scenario results (GWP100):
| Manure Retention | Average Emission Intensity (kg CO₂e/kg greasy wool) | Reduction vs. Emissions-Only Baseline |
| Emissions only (no biogenic) | 22.5 | — |
| 0% retention | 13.7 | 38–40% |
| 33.3% retention | 6.6 | 57–77% |
| 66.7% retention | −0.4 | 75–115% |
At 66.7% manure retention, a figure consistent with well-managed pasture systems: wool production becomes a net carbon sink under GWP100 accounting. Under GWP*, it achieves net-negative status (−14.2 kg CO₂e/kg) even at zero manure retention.
4.3 Manure Retention Variable
The sensitivity of results to manure retention is expected: manure represents 54.1% of all ingested carbon. The proportion of deposited manure carbon that is retained in soil versus lost to atmospheric decomposition varies widely (10% to over 90%) depending on:
- Climate (temperature, rainfall, aridity)
- Soil health and microbial activity
- Presence and diversity of dung beetle populations
- Grazing management (rotational, holistic, continuous)
- Antibiotic use (which suppresses soil microbiology)
- Pasture species composition and root architecture
This is a controllable variable and it is precisely the variable that regenerative farming practices are designed to optimise.
4.4 Material Balance Argument
The biogenic framework is grounded in a basic law of physics: the conservation of mass. Every gram of carbon a sheep consumes must be accounted for. Measuring feed and emissions is only part of the story; a true audit must include the carbon in manure, urine, wool, meat, milk, and mortalities. The total equation has to add up.
Conventional LCA fails because it looks at only one side of the balance sheet. It tracks the outflows like emissions, but completely ignores the inflows: photosynthetic uptake, soil carbon storage, and the carbon physically stored within the wool. It is the equivalent of assessing a company’s financial health through its expenses alone, while completely ignoring its revenue.
Ultimately, running an LCA on a biological product without tracking biogenic carbon does not just downplay its environmental benefits. It creates a calculation that is fundamentally incomplete.
5. The Farm as Carbon Engine: Regenerative Agriculture in Practice
5.1 What Is Regenerative Agriculture?
Regenerative agriculture is a philosophy of land management that seeks to enrich soils, improve watersheds, enhance ecosystem services (including carbon and nitrogen sequestration), increase biodiversity, and promote the welfare of both farmers and livestock. Unlike organic certification, it is not defined by a prescribed set of rules or prohibited inputs. It is defined by outcomes; by the measurable regeneration of the living systems on which farming depends.
Various global certification bodies exist. None has yet been formally applied in New Zealand, though the practices are increasingly adopted. The term itself is contentious: some practitioners argue that debating definitions distracts from the work itself. What is not contentious is the evidence: farms managed under regenerative principles consistently demonstrate improved soil carbon stocks, enhanced water retention, greater biodiversity, and, critically, reduced net greenhouse gas emissions.
5.2 Why Regenerative? The Case Against the Status Quo
New Zealand’s conventional farming model has delivered short-term fiscal gains at the cost of long-term natural capital. The metrics are sobering:
• Water quality: 65% of New Zealand’s rivers and lakes are unswimmable. The country’s freshwater quality ranks among the worst in the developed world.
• Biodiversity: New Zealand has the highest proportion of threatened native species globally. Seventy-six percent of native freshwater fish (39 of 51 species) are classified as threatened or at-risk.
• Emissions: Agriculture accounts for approximately 50% of New Zealand’s national greenhouse gas emissions but contributes only 5% of GDP.
• Habitat loss: Canterbury podocarp forest has been reduced to less than 2% of its original extent. Wetlands nationally are below 10% of pre-human coverage.
• Farmer welfare: Rural and farming suicide rates exceed urban rates.
• Strong wool economics: Strong wool is now routinely burned or buried. Most farmers lose money on shearing.
This is the baseline against which regenerative practices must be assessed — not an idealised version of conventional farming, but the reality of a system that has degraded its own foundations.
5.3 Lake Hawea Station: A Case Study in Regenerative Transformation
Lake Hawea Station (LHS), located in the Southern Lakes district of New Zealand’s South Island, is a high-country sheep and cattle station operated by Finn Ross and family. Lanaco wool suppliers could emulate LHS and it serves as the primary case study for this whitepaper’s carbon footprint analysis.
5.3.1 The Regenerative Programme
LHS has implemented a comprehensive regenerative programme encompassing:
• Holistic grazing management: planned rotational grazing designed to optimise pasture recovery, root development, and soil biology
• Native shelterbelts and reforestation: strategic planting of native species to restore biodiversity corridors, provide livestock shelter, sequester carbon, and improve water quality
• Multi-species winter crops: approaching conventional yields with one-third the tractor hours, zero synthetic fertiliser, zero nutrient runoff, and accumulating soil carbon
• No-till cultivation: minimising soil disturbance to preserve mycorrhizal networks and soil carbon stocks
• Biodiversity integration: diverse plant species enabling stock self-medication and supporting native fauna
• Staff welfare reporting: recognising that human wellbeing is inseparable from ecological wellbeing
• Annual carbon budgeting: systematic measurement and management of all emissions and sequestration
• Soil carbon baselining: stocks measured in 2023, with anticipation of inclusion in national emissions budgets by 2028
• Methane reduction research: active exploration of pasture types and seaweed supplementation to reduce enteric methane
5.3.2 Carbon Performance
LHS commissioned an independent carbon audit through Toitū Envirocare covering the period July 2019 to June 2020:
| Category | Tonnes CO₂e |
| Gross emissions (all sources) | 2,516 |
| Gross sequestration (all sinks) | 4,958 |
| Net position | −2,442 (climate positive) |
LHS was certified carbon zero by Toitū, the first farm in Australasia to achieve this certification. Notably, LHS’s private calculations tracked within 5% of the independent audit, demonstrating robust internal accounting capability.
LHS now uses a dual-system approach:
• AgVice for emissions measurement
• CarbonCrop for sequestration measurement via AI and remote sensing (satellite and aerial imagery analysed by machine learning algorithms to quantify native forest and vegetation carbon uptake)
CarbonCrop provides monitoring, reporting, assurance, and facilitates carbon credit sales. Rigorous systems prevent double-counting: sequestration sold as credits is excluded from product-level claims, and sequestration inset into wool is excluded from credit sales. The climate-positive claim is based on gross figures, not net-of-sales figures.
5.3.3 The Insetting Model
The concept of carbon insetting, sequestering carbon within one’s own supply chain rather than purchasing offsets from unrelated projects, is central to any farm-Lanaco partnership. Trees planted on stations where Lanaco’s wool is grown sequester carbon in the same landscape, the same watershed, and the same ecosystem as the sheep that produce the fibre. This creates a direct, verifiable, geographically co-located link between emissions and removals.
Insetting through on-farm native tree planting delivers multiple co-benefits beyond carbon:
• Biodiversity restoration: native plantings provide habitat for threatened species
• Water quality improvement: riparian plantings filter nutrient runoff before it reaches waterways
• Soil stabilisation: root systems prevent erosion on hill country
• Livestock welfare: shelterbelts provide shade and wind protection, reducing stock stress
• Cultural value: restoration of native land as an act of intergenerational stewardship
5.3.4 Beyond Carbon Neutrality
LHS’s Finn Ross articulates a philosophy that goes beyond carbon neutrality as a goal:
“Carbon neutrality is arbitrary. Carbon budgets should compare a farm’s man-made system against its natural-state carbon balance. A climate-positive farm with significant regeneration may still sequester far less than its natural state. Credits are warranted, but neutrality shouldn’t be the end goal. New Zealand farmland was once massive native forest, and that was a massive carbon sink.”
This framing, asking not “are we neutral?” but “how close are we to what this land could be?”, sets a higher bar and a more honest one. It acknowledges that we would never fell old-growth native forest today, and that our duty to restore is proportionate to what we would refuse to cut if the country reverted to its natural state tomorrow.
5.4 Scaling the Regenerative Supply Chain
Lake Hawea Station is not an isolated case. Lanaco’s carbon footprint analysis draws on data from ten New Zealand farms supplying wool to the company, with the broader supplier group (designated “Astino farms”) reporting:
| Metric | Value (kg CO₂e/kg greasy wool) |
| Gross emissions | 16.95 |
| Sequestration | 28.20 |
| Net position | −11.25 |
These figures demonstrate that verified carbon-negative wool production is not confined to a single demonstration farm but is achievable across a portfolio of suppliers. Lanaco’s target is for all fibre to be sourced from accredited carbon-zero farms by 2030, supported by:
• Partnership agreements with regenerative farms
• Provision of carbon accounting support and tools
• Industry-wide methane reduction initiatives (feed additives, pasture management, genetics)
• Advocacy for biogenic carbon recognition in national emissions frameworks
6. From Paddock to Product: The EcoStatic® Carbon Footprint
6.1 Product Overview
EcoStatic® is a non-woven filter media engineered for air filtration applications such as HVAC. It is manufactured from New Zealand wool (approximately 60% of fibre volume) and polyolefin polymers (approximately 40%), with a polyolefin support layer and polyethylene packaging. Two of the HVAC product grades are listed below:
| SKU | MERV Rating |
| EFP-085B28 | MERV 11 |
| EFP-145B28 | MERV 13 |
EcoStatic delivers several inherent performance advantages over conventional synthetic filter media:
• Lower air resistance: reduces fan energy consumption and associated carbon emissions during use
• Longer service life: reduces replacement frequency and associated waste
• Biobased: wool fibres are biobased; synthetic filters are not
• Superior electrostatic properties: wool’s natural charge enhances particle capture efficiency
Lanaco has also developed a 100% biobased variant of EcoStatic, eliminating the oil-based component entirely. This product represents the world’s first fully biobased high-performance air filter.
6.2 System Boundaries and Methodology
The EcoStatic product carbon footprint (PCF) assessment follows ISO 14067:2018 methodology across a cradle-to-customer-gate boundary:
Included:
• Raw material sourcing (wool production, polyolefin production)
• Wool processing (cleaning)
• Inland transport (farm to processor, processor to manufacturer)
• Manufacturing at Lanaco’s Auckland facility
• Packaging (polyethylene bags, paperboard cores)
• International distribution to customer gate
Excluded (or reported separately):
• In-use energy savings (reported as supplementary information only)
• End-of-life disposal
• Retail and corporate operations
A conservative, worst-case approach is applied throughout: where data ranges exist, the higher-emission assumption is used.
6.3 Data Sources
The assessment draws on:
• Primary farm data: Verified emissions from Lake Hawea Station (OverseerFM), Farmax data from 10 supplier farms
• Supplier data: Polyolefin fibre (2.33 kg CO₂e/kg), support layer (3.04 kg CO₂e/kg)
• Manufacturing data: Lanaco facility energy records (average 2.13 kWh/kg)
• Transport data: Measured tonne-kilometres using MfE emission factors
• Secondary databases: NZ Ministry for the Environment Measuring Emissions Guidance 2022, Ecoinvent v3.8
6.4 Wool Emission Factors
Wool sourcing dominates the product carbon footprint. The choice of emission factor is therefore critical. Available benchmarks span an enormous range:
| Source | Gross Emissions (kg CO₂e/kg) | Sequestration (kg CO₂e/kg) | Net (kg CO₂e/kg) |
| Ecoinvent global average | 20.05 | — | 20.05 |
| Lake Hawea Station | 14.20 | 28.20 | −14.00 |
| Astino farms (10-farm average) | 16.95 | 28.20 | −11.25 |
| Swan et al. (67% manure retention, GWP100) | — | — | −0.4 |
| Swan et al. (67% manure retention, GWP*) | — | — | −14.2 |
| Published LCA range (2010–2024) | 1.1–61.4 | — | 1.1–61.4 |
The disparity between the Ecoinvent global average (20.05) and verified New Zealand supplier data (−11.25 to −14.00) reflects fundamentally different system boundaries: one includes only emissions; the other includes the full biogenic and sequestration picture.
New Zealand pastoral farming systems differ materially from global averages. NZ sheep graze perennial pasture year-round, on soils with approximately 150 years of stable land use and low erosion rates. There is no feedlot system, no housing, minimal supplementary feed. These conditions favour both lower gross emissions per animal and higher soil carbon retention.
6.5 Carbon Footprint Results
Without On-Farm Sequestration (Conservative Baseline)
| SKU (Rating) | Per m² (kg CO₂e) | Per kg (kg CO₂e) |
| EFP-085B28 (MERV 11) | 2.01 | 17.74 |
| EFP-145B28 (MERV 13) | 3.40 | 19.64 |
These figures use the upper-bound gross emission factors without crediting any on-farm carbon sequestration. They represent Lanaco’s conservative, worst-case position and are comparable to conventional synthetic filter media.
With On-Farm Sequestration (LHS Model)
| SKU (Rating) | Per m² (kg CO₂e) | Per kg (kg CO₂e) |
| EFP-085B28 (MERV 11) | −0.08 | −0.67 |
| EFP-145B28 (MERV 13) | −0.15 | −0.88 |
These figures are net negative. The product sequesters more carbon than it emits across its entire cradle-to-customer-gate life cycle. Every square metre of EcoStatic installed in a building is a net withdrawal of CO₂ from the atmosphere.
6.6 Emissions Breakdown
Raw materials, principally wool, dominate the footprint in both the emissions and sequestration scenarios. Within the emissions profile:
• Wool production and processing: ~75–80% of total emissions
• Transport (wool freight): ~10–12% (multiple inland processing stages in NZ increase this component)
• Polyolefin components: ~5–8%
• Manufacturing: ~3–5% (NZ grid at 40% renewable; 100% renewable available via Meridian Energy)
• Packaging and distribution: ~2–3%
6.7 Comparison with Allbirds M0.0NSHOT
Lanaco’s approach to carbon accounting is consistent with, and reinforced by, the methodology pioneered by Allbirds in creating the M0.0NSHOT, the world’s first net-zero carbon shoe (0.0 kg CO₂e, achieved without offsets). The M0.0NSHOT used carbon-negative regenerative merino wool from Lake Hawea Station for its upper, crediting on-farm sequestration alongside emissions in the product carbon footprint.
Allbirds’s LCA methodology was developed with Clean Agency and SCS Global Services and verified against ISO 14067:2018 by Industrial Ecology Consultants. The approach demonstrates that sequestration-inclusive accounting for wool products is not a fringe methodology but one that has been subjected to third-party scrutiny and commercial deployment at global scale.
Therefore, crediting on-farm sequestration is not only permitted under ISO 14067 but is required for accuracy. Omitting it produces a result that is as misleading as a financial statement that omits revenue.
7. The Synthetic Fibre Comparison: Correcting the Higg Index Bias
7.1 The Higg MSI: A Flawed Benchmark
The Higg Materials Sustainability Index (MSI), developed by the Sustainable Apparel Coalition (now Cascale), is the most widely used sustainability benchmarking tool in the global textile industry. It assigns environmental impact scores to materials across multiple categories, including climate change, water use, and chemistry.
The Higg MSI has consistently rated fossil-fuel-derived synthetic fibres (polyester, nylon, polypropylene) as having lower environmental impact than natural fibres such as wool, cotton, and silk. This ranking has influenced procurement decisions across the fashion, home textiles, and industrial filtration sectors, systematically directing demand toward petroleum-based materials and away from biological ones.
7.2 Critique
The Higg MSI’s treatment of wool has been subject to escalating scientific and regulatory challenge:
• Norwegian Consumer Authority (2022): Formally challenged the use of Higg MSI scores in consumer-facing sustainability claims, finding insufficient scientific basis for the tool’s comparative rankings.
• Netherlands Authority for Consumers and Markets (2022): Similarly questioned the reliability of Higg MSI data for substantiating environmental claims.
• European Union: Ongoing regulatory processes to establish standardised Product Environmental Footprint (PEF) methodologies that may supersede proprietary tools like the Higg MSI.
The core technical criticisms are:
1. Biogenic carbon is ignored. The Higg MSI relies on LCA data derived from ISO 14040/14044 frameworks that do not account for biogenic carbon flows. Wool’s carbon footprint is calculated on an emissions-only basis, inflating its apparent impact by the margins documented in Section 4.
2. Fossil carbon extraction is normalised. Synthetic fibres are derived from petroleum — a finite resource whose extraction, refining, and polymerisation release geologically sequestered carbon. The Higg MSI treats this as a standard industrial process with a defined emission factor but does not penalise it for the permanence of the atmospheric addition.
3. End-of-life impacts are underweighted. Synthetic fibres persist in the environment for centuries. They shed microplastics during use — an emerging environmental and health crisis. Wool biodegrades naturally and releases its carbon back into the biogenic cycle. These dynamics are inadequately captured.
4. Co-benefits are excluded. Wool production, when conducted regeneratively, delivers soil carbon sequestration, biodiversity enhancement, water quality improvement, and landscape restoration. Synthetic fibre production delivers none of these co-benefits. The Higg MSI has no mechanism to credit them.
7.3 The Corrected Comparison
A fair comparison between wool-based and synthetic filter media must account for the full life cycle, including:
| Factor | EcoStatic® (Wool-based) | Synthetic HVAC Media |
| Raw material origin | Renewable (photosynthesis) | Non-renewable (petroleum) |
| Carbon cycle | Biogenic (cyclical) | Fossil (one-way addition) |
| Biogenic carbon in product | ~1.7 kg CO₂e/kg (atmospheric origin) | 0 (geological origin) |
| On-farm sequestration potential | Yes (verified: −11 to −14 kg CO₂e/kg wool) | N/A |
| Biobased | Yes | No |
| End-of-life biodegradability | Yes (industrial compostable variant available) | No (centuries to degrade) |
| Soil health contribution | Positive (manure, root systems) | Negative (extraction, refining) |
| Biodiversity impact | Positive (regenerative farms) | Negative (petrochemical supply chain) |
| Energy in use (air resistance) | Lower | Higher |
| Service life | Longer | Shorter |
When the full picture is assessed, EcoStatic is not merely competitive with synthetic alternatives on a carbon basis. It operates in a fundamentally different category, one in which the product is part of a living system that can improve over time, rather than a extractive system that can only be managed for less harm.
8. A Roadmap to Carbon-Negative Filtration
8.1 Where Lanaco Stands Today
Lanaco has achieved the following milestones:
• Product carbon footprint per ISO 14067:2018 methodology
• Net carbon-negative product demonstrated (with on-farm sequestration)
• 100% renewable energy manufacturing capability (Meridian Energy)
• 100% biobased, plastic-free filter variant developed
• First US customer secured
• Verified carbon-zero wool supplier partnership (Lake Hawea Station)
• Ten-farm supplier data baseline established
• Carbon accounting and insetting framework operational
• Dual-system approach to emissions (AgVice) and sequestration (CarbonCrop) measurement
8.2 The 2030 Target
Lanaco’s stated 2030 target is to source all fibre from accredited carbon-zero farms. Achieving this requires parallel action on multiple fronts:
On-farm emissions reduction:
• Methane-reducing feed additives (e.g., 3-NOP, Asparagopsis seaweed) as they become commercially available for pastoral systems
• Genetic selection for lower-emission sheep within and among breeds
• Optimised pasture composition to reduce enteric methane per unit of production
• Soil carbon building through regenerative grazing and no-till practices
On-farm sequestration (insetting):
• Continued native tree planting across supplier farms
• Riparian restoration and wetland rehabilitation
• Soil carbon stock monitoring and management
• Carbon credit and insetting programme expansion
Manufacturing and supply chain:
• Transition to 100% renewable electricity (already available)
• Transition of wool scouring energy from coal to hydroelectric (in progress)
• Economies of scale to reduce energy intensity per unit
• Supply chain optimisation to reduce transport emissions (wool processing consolidation)
Product innovation:
• Industrially compostable filter media (eliminating end-of-life landfill contribution)
• Extended product lifespan through improved engineering
• Continued reduction of air resistance to maximise in-use energy savings
8.3 The Broader Opportunity: Filtration as Climate Action
The global HVAC filtration market represents billions of square metres of media replaced annually. Every synthetic filter installed is a commitment to fossil carbon extraction, microplastic emission, and landfill accumulation. Every EcoStatic filter installed, sourced from regenerative farms, represents:
• A net withdrawal of CO₂ from the atmosphere (embodied in the product)
• A contribution to soil carbon building (via the farming system)
• A reduction in operational carbon (via lower air resistance)
• A reduction in microplastic pollution (via zero synthetic fibre shedding)
• A contribution to biodiversity, water quality, and rural community resilience (via the regenerative supply chain)
Scaled globally, this proposition transforms air filtration from a necessary operational cost into an active climate intervention: a product that cleans the air inside buildings while cleaning the atmosphere outside them.
8.4 Alignment with Sustainable Development Goals
Lanaco’s EcoStatic and its regenerative supply chain contribute directly to multiple UN Sustainable Development Goals:
| SDG | Contribution |
| SDG 3: Good Health & Well-being | Cleaner indoor air; zero microplastic emissions; farmer welfare |
| SDG 6: Clean Water & Sanitation | Riparian restoration; reduced nutrient runoff from regenerative farms |
| SDG 8: Decent Work & Economic Growth | Viable market for strong wool; regenerative farming as economic model |
| SDG 9: Industry, Innovation & Infrastructure | Bio-based filtration technology; carbon-negative manufacturing |
| SDG 11: Sustainable Cities & Communities | Lower-carbon building operations; improved indoor air quality |
| SDG 12: Responsible Consumption & Production | Biodegradable product; extended lifespan; circular material flows |
| SDG 13: Climate Action | Net carbon-negative product; regenerative supply chain |
| SDG 15: Life on Land | Native reforestation; biodiversity restoration; soil health |
9. Conclusions and Call to Action
9.1 Summary of Key Arguments
This whitepaper has presented evidence across three interconnected domains:
The Science: Conventional life cycle assessment of wool production is incomplete. Ignoring biogenic carbon flows, which are mandated under ISO 14067:2018, published studies have overstated wool’s emission intensity by 38% to over 100%. When biogenic carbon is properly accounted for, including the retention of manure carbon in soil, wool production can be a net carbon sink. The distinction between biogenic methane (cyclical, short-lived, photosynthetically derived) and fossil methane (one-way, geologically liberated) is not a nuance. It is a fundamental difference in climate impact.
The Farm: Regenerative agriculture transforms the farm from an emissions source into a carbon engine. Lake Hawea Station demonstrates that a working sheep and cattle station can sequester nearly twice its gross emissions through native tree planting, soil carbon building, and holistic land management, while maintaining and increasing production. This is not theoretical. It is measured, audited, and certified.
The Product: Lanaco’s EcoStatic filter media, when sourced from regenerative farms, achieves a net carbon-negative footprint at the customer gate. It delivers this while offering lower air resistance (reduced energy use), longer service life (reduced waste), zero microplastic emissions (reduced pollution), and a pathway to full industrial compostability (circular end-of-life).
9.2 A Challenge to Convention
The idea that wool harms the climate sounds simple: sheep produce methane, methane is a greenhouse gas, so wool must be bad. While the facts about methane are true, the conclusion is wrong because it completely ignores the positive side of the environmental equation.
Sheep eat grass. That grass grew from CO₂ in the atmosphere. The sheep convert most of that carbon into manure, which can build soil carbon stocks. The methane they emit is recycled through the atmosphere in 13 years and re-enters the system through photosynthesis. The wool they produce embodies atmospheric carbon in a durable, functional fibre. And the farms they graze on can, with proper management, sequester far more carbon than the animals release.
This is not wishful thinking. It is mass balance. It is thermodynamics. It is ISO 14067.
9.3 Call to Action
We invite the following groups to engage with the evidence presented here:
Building owners and facility managers: Specify EcoStatic for your next HVAC filter replacement cycle. Achieve measurable carbon reduction in your building operations while supporting regenerative agriculture.
HVAC engineers and specifiers: Evaluate EcoStatic on performance, energy efficiency, and carbon footprint. Request product carbon footprint data and compare it on a full life-cycle basis, including biogenic carbon, against synthetic alternatives.
Corporate sustainability teams: Challenge your existing procurement frameworks. If they rely on Higg MSI or Ecoinvent data for wool, they are using incomplete science. Demand ISO 14067-compliant assessments that include biogenic carbon flows.
Policymakers and standards bodies: Accelerate the adoption of biogenic carbon accounting in national emissions frameworks and building certification schemes. Recognise the distinction between fossil and biogenic methane in agricultural policy.
Investors and strategic partners: Lanaco is scaling a product that is carbon-negative, plastic-free, high-performance, and aligned with the trajectory of global regulation and consumer expectation. The opportunity is to build a global platform for climate-positive filtration.
Researchers: Extend the biogenic LCA framework to other wool products and other natural fibre systems. Investigate manure retention rates under different management regimes. Develop functional unit standards that capture the full environmental value of regeneratively produced biological materials.
The air we breathe indoors passes through filters. Those filters can be made from fossil carbon extracted from the earth, or from biogenic carbon captured from the sky. The choice between these two paths is not merely a procurement decision. It is a statement about what kind of relationship we choose to have with the living systems that sustain us.
10. References
Allbirds, Inc. (2024). M0.0NSHOT Zero — the world’s first net-zero-carbon shoe. Wool sourced from Lake Hawea Station via The New Zealand Merino Company’s ZQRX programme; farm footprint verified by Toitū Envirocare; methodology accounts for on-farm sequestration in addition to emissions. https://ir.allbirds.com/news-releases/news-release-details/m00nshot-zero-worlds-first-net-zero-carbon-shoe-pushes
Allen, M. R., Shine, K. P., Fuglestvedt, J. S., Millar, R. J., Cain, M., Frame, D. J., & Macey, A. H. (2018). A solution to the misrepresentations of CO₂-equivalent emissions of short-lived climate pollutants under ambitious mitigation. npj Climate and Atmospheric Science, 1(16).
Bai, Y., & Cotrufo, M. F. (2022). Grassland soil carbon sequestration: Current understanding, challenges, and solutions. Science, 377(6606), 603–608.
Blignaut, J. N., Swan, P. G., & Blignaut, A. (2026). A biogenic life cycle approach towards estimating the carbon intensity of wool production: Evidence from six Australian case studies. Agricultural Systems, 233.
Cassidy, E., & West, P. (2025). We can’t ignore the largest source of methane. Project Drawdown.
Chandramoni, Jadhao, S. B., Tiwari, C. M., & Khan, M. Y. (2000). Energy metabolism with particular reference to methane production in Muzaffarnagari sheep fed on two planes of nutrition. Small Ruminant Research, 38(1), 13–19.
Delgrado-Baquerizo, M., et al. (2018). Carbon content and climate variability drive global soil bacterial diversity patterns. Ecological Monographs, 88(3), 405–417.
Eurovent AISBL (2026). Guide to Environmental Product Declarations (EPD) for Air Filters. Released 31 March 2026. https://www.eurovent.eu/publications/eurovent-guide-on-epd-for-air-filters/
Guo, M., et al. (2024). Carbon content and digestibility of forages: A meta-analysis. Animal Feed Science and Technology, 308, 115879.
IPCC. (2021). Climate Change 2021: The Physical Science Basis. Contribution of Working Group I to the Sixth Assessment Report of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change. Cambridge University Press.
ISO. (2018). ISO 14067:2018 Greenhouse gases — Carbon footprint of products — Requirements and guidelines for quantification. International Organization for Standardization.
Maree, C., et al. (2025). Soil organic carbon response to grazing management: A global meta-analysis. Soil & Tillage Research, 243, 106198.
Matthews, K. B., et al. (2025). Pasture management and soil carbon: Integrated assessment of grazing systems. Agriculture, Ecosystems & Environment, 358, 108710.
Moore, K. J., & Coleman, S. W. (2001). Chemical composition of forages. In Forage Quality, Evaluation, and Utilization (pp. 83–137). ASA/CSSA/SSSA.
NASA (2020). Wool Mask to Fight Fires in Space Inspires Fire Equipment on Earth. NASA Spinoff 2020. https://spinoff.nasa.gov/Spinoff2020/ps_4.html
Soussana, J. F., et al. (2007). Full accounting of the greenhouse gas (CO₂, N₂O, CH₄) budget of nine European grassland sites. Agriculture, Ecosystems & Environment, 121(1–2), 121–134.
Wiedemann, S. G., Yan, M. J., Henry, B. K., & Murphy, C. M. (2016). Resource use and greenhouse gas emissions from three wool production regions in Australia. Journal of Cleaner Production, 122, 121–132.
Xiong, P., et al. (2022). Global patterns in manure carbon-to-nitrogen ratios and their environmental drivers. Global Ecology and Biogeography, 31(9), 1743–1755.
11. Appendices
Appendix A: Glossary of Key Terms
| Term | Definition |
| Biogenic carbon | Carbon derived from biomass, from living or recently living organisms. In the context of wool LCA, this refers to carbon captured from the atmosphere by plants through photosynthesis and cycled through the sheep production system. |
| Fossil carbon | Carbon derived from geological reservoirs (coal, oil, gas) that has been sequestered underground for millions of years. Its release to the atmosphere represents a net addition to the active carbon cycle. |
| GWP100 | Global Warming Potential over 100 years, a metric that expresses the warming effect of a greenhouse gas relative to CO₂ over a century. Assigns CH₄ a factor of 27 (IPCC AR6). |
| GWP* | An alternative metric that accounts for the different atmospheric behaviour of short- and long-lived greenhouse gases. Under GWP*, a constant rate of short-lived gas emission (e.g., methane) produces no additional warming. |
| Insetting | Sequestering carbon within one’s own supply chain, as opposed to purchasing offsets from unrelated external projects. |
| ISO 14067:2018 | International standard for quantifying the carbon footprint of products, including specific provisions for biogenic carbon flows. |
| LCA | Life Cycle Assessment: a methodology for evaluating the environmental impacts of a product across its life cycle. |
| MERV | Minimum Efficiency Reporting Value: a standard rating system for air filter effectiveness (ASHRAE 52.2). |
| Manure retention | The proportion of carbon in deposited manure that is retained in soil carbon pools rather than lost to atmospheric decomposition. |
| Regenerative agriculture | A philosophy and set of practices aimed at restoring and enhancing soil health, biodiversity, water systems, and ecosystem services on agricultural land. |
| Sequestration | The long-term removal and storage of carbon dioxide from the atmosphere, typically in soil, vegetation, or geological formations. |
Appendix B: Summary of Swan et al. (2026) Carbon Allocation
| Carbon Destination | % of Total Ingested Carbon | Tonnes C/yr (6 cases) |
| Manure | 54.1% | 2,071 |
| Respiration | 22.7% | 870 |
| Urine | 7.5% | 287 |
| Enteric & manure emissions | 5.2% | 201 |
| Milk (lactation) | 3.8% | 146 |
| Live sales | 3.5% | 134 |
| Wool | 1.9% | 73 |
| Mortalities | 0.9% | 34 |
| Lambs at birth | 0.4% | 13 |
| Total | 100% | 3,829 |
Appendix C: EcoStatic® Product Carbon Footprint: Detailed Breakdown
Refer to Lanaco Product Carbon Footprint Report v1.1 (June 2025) for full methodology, data sources, emission factors, and uncertainty analysis.
Appendix D: Lake Hawea Station Carbon Budget Summary
| Period | Gross Emissions (t CO₂e) | Gross Sequestration (t CO₂e) | Net Position (t CO₂e) |
| July 2019–June 2020 (Toitū audit) | 2,516 | 4,958 | −2,442 |
Measurement systems: AgVice (emissions), CarbonCrop (sequestration via AI/remote sensing). Certified carbon zero by Toitū Envirocare: first farm in Australasia.