Several months after M&S and Tesco dropped their ill-advised "air freight logos", consumers might be doubly surprised that the "carbon counting" carousel is still turning. This is in large part to the increasingly impotent and cranky UK Government departments that sling copious cash into Carbon Trust. Nice bunch of well meaning people, but whether they like it or not, they will have to deliver some "killer facts" for their burgeoning accounts. Nowhere do they use the word trade-off - e.g. what if i buy crisps today and an apple tomorrow? etc. What about the global and national economic equity implications? The parameters on these carbon counts are ridicuolous and open to ridicule from anyone with a inquiring mind. Have they included the amortised carbon load of producing and maintaining a tractor over all the fields it has and will plough? What about the kit-kats the tractor driver eats - if he had a nice office job, he'd be eating ciabatta? What about the carbon saved by the tractor not being 30 farting draught animals? The Tall Economist is happy that Terry Leahy is leading us down a pathway where this issue is on the horizon behind us ...Source: The Guardian (UK)
It all began with a packet of cheese and onion Walkers crisps. For this humble potato snack boldly went where no other food product, not even the fearsome Lion Bar, had yet dared to go – the brave new world of carbon labelling.
The smelliest flavour of Britain's favourite crisps has had its carbon footprint measured and, since last year, it has been exhibited on its royal blue packaging for all to see.
It took over a year and a half for the Carbon Trust to figure out a carbon label for the Walkers cheese and onion pack. It's 75g — almost double the weight of the pack (34.5g).
Two other products were also put to the test: Boots Botanics shampoo (average 148g for a 250ml bottle) and Innocent Smoothies (average 225g for a 250ml bottle).
You would be forgiven for thinking that taking this much time to measure the carbon footprint of the lifecycle of a packet of crisps is rather ludicrous, over-complicated, and a waste of time.
But the Carbon Trust and companies argue that it will raise public awareness and, more importantly, will help them, through the evaluating process, realise where companies' biggest carbon sins are. They can then make amends by adjusting their supply chain.
More foods and other products are now set to follow suit. They're even going to measure the carbon footprint of an iron. The Carbon Trust announced this week that seven more companies have signed up to the carbon labelling scheme. That makes 20 in total now — including Tesco, who have pledged to add carbon labels to 30 of their own-brand products, taking in orange juice, lightbulbs, washing detergent and some veg. Cadbury has put forward its Dairy Milk bar and Andrex toilet tissue, and Foster's lager are also getting carbon labelled up.
The idea is to work towards a single standard that will eventually be applicable not just to food, but to a wide range of sectors and products. Halifax bank has already labelled its online Web Saver account with a carbon footprint of 204g. Make of that what you will.
The calculations are done from cradle to grave so, for example, with Walkers crisps, the process began by calculating the carbon emissions of the fertilisers used in the soil, then proceeded to the farmer ploughing the field, the manufacturing process, packaging, distribution, retailing and finally to the disposal of the packets at the end of their life, including transport from disposal site to the recycling point or landfill site, as well as emissions from the recycling or landfill process.
If that sounds full-on, think about the number of calculations needed to find the carbon footprint of a food with larger numbers of ingredients, such as a pizza or a pre-prepared fruit salad.
The point to all this, said former Defra head David Miliband last year, is to help consumers, who often feel confused and powerless, as well as producers, who feel their environmental efforts are going unrecognised and unrewarded.
But does it really? It is likely to confuse a lot of people who will be faced with a number which, at present at least, has no meaning. Is 75g per pack a lot or a little? It sounds a lot, coming in at double the weight of the pack. So, does Walkers get a big green thumbs up or down?
And even with a common standard, it is going to take an age to carbon footprint every product. Last year, Tesco boss Terry Leahy announced that the giant supermarket chain would carbon label all of its products — some 70,000 different lines. This was wisely pared down to a more manageable 30 products a few months on once Leahy — or more likely the poor soul he put in charge — realised how much work it would entail.
So is it worth all this effort? Will the carbon label system work, and will we ever understand it, and care enough to change our habits?
A quick straw poll amongst friends revealed that there may be some way to go. "What if my flowers have been flown in from Kenya?" one points out. "I'm supporting the community there but the carbon label will be huge from all the air miles." "And if they're taking into account the whole lifecycle, including how I cook my food, does that mean I am never again allowed to slow roast my potatoes and am condemned to a life of mash?" quips another.
Others complained of being labeltastically fatigued, with Fairtrade, organic and traffic lights amongst others already fighting for space. But there is something morbidly interesting in knowing how much carbon has been emitted producing the food we'll gobble down in a few minutes. And more often than not, it's far too much.
The smelliest flavour of Britain's favourite crisps has had its carbon footprint measured and, since last year, it has been exhibited on its royal blue packaging for all to see.
It took over a year and a half for the Carbon Trust to figure out a carbon label for the Walkers cheese and onion pack. It's 75g — almost double the weight of the pack (34.5g).
Two other products were also put to the test: Boots Botanics shampoo (average 148g for a 250ml bottle) and Innocent Smoothies (average 225g for a 250ml bottle).
You would be forgiven for thinking that taking this much time to measure the carbon footprint of the lifecycle of a packet of crisps is rather ludicrous, over-complicated, and a waste of time.
But the Carbon Trust and companies argue that it will raise public awareness and, more importantly, will help them, through the evaluating process, realise where companies' biggest carbon sins are. They can then make amends by adjusting their supply chain.
More foods and other products are now set to follow suit. They're even going to measure the carbon footprint of an iron. The Carbon Trust announced this week that seven more companies have signed up to the carbon labelling scheme. That makes 20 in total now — including Tesco, who have pledged to add carbon labels to 30 of their own-brand products, taking in orange juice, lightbulbs, washing detergent and some veg. Cadbury has put forward its Dairy Milk bar and Andrex toilet tissue, and Foster's lager are also getting carbon labelled up.
The idea is to work towards a single standard that will eventually be applicable not just to food, but to a wide range of sectors and products. Halifax bank has already labelled its online Web Saver account with a carbon footprint of 204g. Make of that what you will.
The calculations are done from cradle to grave so, for example, with Walkers crisps, the process began by calculating the carbon emissions of the fertilisers used in the soil, then proceeded to the farmer ploughing the field, the manufacturing process, packaging, distribution, retailing and finally to the disposal of the packets at the end of their life, including transport from disposal site to the recycling point or landfill site, as well as emissions from the recycling or landfill process.
If that sounds full-on, think about the number of calculations needed to find the carbon footprint of a food with larger numbers of ingredients, such as a pizza or a pre-prepared fruit salad.
The point to all this, said former Defra head David Miliband last year, is to help consumers, who often feel confused and powerless, as well as producers, who feel their environmental efforts are going unrecognised and unrewarded.
But does it really? It is likely to confuse a lot of people who will be faced with a number which, at present at least, has no meaning. Is 75g per pack a lot or a little? It sounds a lot, coming in at double the weight of the pack. So, does Walkers get a big green thumbs up or down?
And even with a common standard, it is going to take an age to carbon footprint every product. Last year, Tesco boss Terry Leahy announced that the giant supermarket chain would carbon label all of its products — some 70,000 different lines. This was wisely pared down to a more manageable 30 products a few months on once Leahy — or more likely the poor soul he put in charge — realised how much work it would entail.
So is it worth all this effort? Will the carbon label system work, and will we ever understand it, and care enough to change our habits?
A quick straw poll amongst friends revealed that there may be some way to go. "What if my flowers have been flown in from Kenya?" one points out. "I'm supporting the community there but the carbon label will be huge from all the air miles." "And if they're taking into account the whole lifecycle, including how I cook my food, does that mean I am never again allowed to slow roast my potatoes and am condemned to a life of mash?" quips another.
Others complained of being labeltastically fatigued, with Fairtrade, organic and traffic lights amongst others already fighting for space. But there is something morbidly interesting in knowing how much carbon has been emitted producing the food we'll gobble down in a few minutes. And more often than not, it's far too much.
No comments:
Post a Comment