Labeling products

[DC]

Would a CO2 label on products be a good idea? should it be mandated to label the CO2 emissions that went into the production and transport etc of a product?
So people are able to make an informed decision in buying a product. sometimes products get transported around alot and the consumers is not aware of it, but still would like to make an informed decision.
someone in northern Germany might think buying shrimps that come from the north sea does not have a large CO2 footprint. but is not aware that those shrimps have been transported across Euope to northern africa and back to germany and thus has no real idea of how much CO2 went into this product.

i think it would be a good label when handled correctly.
what do you think?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Carbon_emission_label

 

[Dinwar]

It'd add a tremendous cost to all products without any beneift. Consumers won't, by and large, care how much CO2 their products are worth--the rationalization "It's already been made, so I'm not contributing anything" is practically built into such a system. And as for the cost, think about what it would take to calculate how much CO2 was emitted making and transporting a product. The first obvious hurdle is that practically nothing is made individually anymore--it's mass-produced, after testing and development. Are you going to simply add up all the CO2 and divide by the number of products? How about seconds and thirds? Factory downtime? Layoffs? How about producing the raw materials? Remember, if it's not ultimately grown it's ultimately mined--in huge batches, on both counts, with multiple customers per batch. Someone would have to sit there and add all that up and divide it out--someone like me, who's going to charge over a hundred dollars an hour (consultants don't get paid that much, but we charge that much most of the time). Then you've got the administration of whatever group is doing the counting--someone has to watch the counters and read the reports and all that. And again, the odds of it doing anything? Pretty small--the justification to ignore it is, as I said, all too easy to formulate.

 

[DC]

tremendous cost? i don't think so.

 

[Dinwar]

tremendous cost? i don't think so.

Do you have any arguments, or are you merely going to disagree? I've pointed out several areas where cost will be added, specifically to give you an avenue of attack should you choose that route (there are other ways to attack my argument).

 

[DC]

Do you have any arguments, or are you merely going to disagree? I've pointed out several areas where cost will be added, specifically to give you an avenue of attack should you choose that route (there are other ways to attack my argument).

you showed that there will be some cost, but nothing that would indicate tremendous costs. you claimed so without evidence i dismiss this as such.

 

[Dinwar]

you showed that there will be some cost, but nothing that would indicate tremendous costs. you claimed so without evidence i dismiss this as such.

ETA: On second thought, I'm goinig to turn your argument around on you: Prove that this will do any good. Until you've proven that (and a wiki link doesn't count; I gave far better arguments and you dismissed them without even considering them), there's nothing to discuss.

You demanded evidence from me. Provide some yourself.

 

[DC]

ETA: On second thought, I'm goinig to turn your argument around on you: Prove that this will do any good. Until you've proven that (and a wiki link doesn't count; I gave far better arguments and you dismissed them without even considering them), there's nothing to discuss.

You demanded evidence from me. Provide some yourself.

i don't claimed anything... but i do think it provides the possibility to consumers to make an infomred decision. ATM most products it is very unclear how much CO2 was emited to produce such a product. A label would provide usefull information.

 

[DC]

also when everyone had to label his products, a mining company would give information to its costumer about the CO2. so the one buying the steel ore know hiw much Co2/kg of ore was already produced, then he can use that information to label his steel, the one further manufacturing stuff with this steel could use that information to know hiw much CO2 his product produces etc.

 

[Dinwar]

i don't claimed anything... but i do think it provides the possibility to consumers to make an infomred decision. ATM most products it is very unclear how much CO2 was emited to produce such a product. A label would provide usefull information.

I'm sorry, but that's simply not true. No one demands warning labels without the intention to institute some cultural change. I'm not even asking you to justify the change--I'm asking you to merely demonstrate that the change will happen.

There's ample evidence that they won't work. Look at nutrition labels and the epidemic of obesity. So you're going to add a bunch of requirements (and it's not going to be one simple law) and in the end have no impact on anything.

And the law WON'T be simple--because the issue of CO2 isn't simple. How are you going to calculate it? How big will the label have to be? Who's in charge of regulating this? Of enforcing it? How long do they have to implement it? How do you deal with biofuels? Additives? Fuel leaks? Fires? Accidents? How will the records be kept? All of this and more will have to go into this sort of law--and all of it will require legistlative debate and give-and-take, and all of THAT will cost us.

the steel ore

No such thing. There's iron ore, and there's coal (we make coke out of it).

And you're still not addressing the issues I raised. SOMEONE has to calculate the amount of CO2 involved. That department is going to need a manager. If you add it to an existing department you're still adding person-hours. Then you've got to re-design the labels (if you think that's not a long and expensive process, you need to talk to some graphic design people). Then you've got to have regulators to examine the labels and prosecute people out of compliance (there will be many).

And you still haven't really addressed the issues you attempted to address. Are we going to calculate it cumulatively--meaning that we include the CO2 from the products used to make the product? For example, mining requires heavy equipment--is that factored into the final CO2 price?

Spread those costs out over all companies (it's not just physical products that result in burning fossil fuels--the creation of intellectual property does as well). And remember, our economy isn't in really good shape right now--you're basically requiring a heavy re-design of product labels and accounting practices in a recession. Not the best time for it.

This issue is far more complex than "If you require it, people will make smart choices". This legislation isn't without economic impact, and there's reason to beleive that it IS going to be without social impact.

 

[DC]

I'm sorry, but that's simply not true. No one demands warning labels without the intention to institute some cultural change. I'm not even asking you to justify the change--I'm asking you to merely demonstrate that the change will happen.

There's ample evidence that they won't work. Look at nutrition labels and the epidemic of obesity. So you're going to add a bunch of requirements (and it's not going to be one simple law) and in the end have no impact on anything.

And the law WON'T be simple--because the issue of CO2 isn't simple. How are you going to calculate it? How big will the label have to be? Who's in charge of regulating this? Of enforcing it? How long do they have to implement it? How do you deal with biofuels? Additives? Fuel leaks? Fires? Accidents? How will the records be kept? All of this and more will have to go into this sort of law--and all of it will require legistlative debate and give-and-take, and all of THAT will cost us.

No such thing. There's iron ore, and there's coal (we make coke out of it).

And you're still not addressing the issues I raised. SOMEONE has to calculate the amount of CO2 involved. That department is going to need a manager. If you add it to an existing department you're still adding person-hours. Then you've got to re-design the labels (if you think that's not a long and expensive process, you need to talk to some graphic design people). Then you've got to have regulators to examine the labels and prosecute people out of compliance (there will be many).

And you still haven't really addressed the issues you attempted to address. Are we going to calculate it cumulatively--meaning that we include the CO2 from the products used to make the product? For example, mining requires heavy equipment--is that factored into the final CO2 price?

Spread those costs out over all companies (it's not just physical products that result in burning fossil fuels--the creation of intellectual property does as well). And remember, our economy isn't in really good shape right now--you're basically requiring a heavy re-design of product labels and accounting practices in a recession. Not the best time for it.

This issue is far more complex than "If you require it, people will make smart choices". This legislation isn't without economic impact, and there's reason to beleive that it IS going to be without social impact.

oops indeed iron ore i meant. it was merely an example.

and btw i did not demand it. what is wrong with you? i merely asked for opinions, i got yours, you think it would be to expensive and not lead to people making any decisions on it. fine. that is your opinion.

 

[Akri]

How much additional CO2 would be generated in calculating the CO2 emissions and making labels for other products?

 

[Dinwar]

and btw i did not demand it. what is wrong with you? i merely asked for opinions, i got yours, you think it would be to expensive and not lead to people making any decisions on it. fine. that is your opinion.

As for what's wrong with me, ask around. There are apparently people with lists.

As for the term "demand", I had assumed that you didn't own your own business. If you do, and want to put CO2 data on your labels, cool, go ahead--though since you're unaware of the costs, I'd STRONGLY encourage you to hire an accountant.

If you DON'T own your own business, that means you're trying to convince others to do so. And on this forum, that means legislation--which is a demand if the term has any meaning. ALL legislation relies on force; the fundamental argument is "We (the government) are bigger than you, and we'll hurt you if you don't do as we say". Now, this doesn't necessarily mean that such demands are wrong. I call them "standing threats": things like "If you rape someone, I'll shoot you", or "If you break into my house, my dog will attack". We demand that people don't violate rights (at least, in most Western countries), and that's perfectly fine. Demands to violate rights (and demanding a company you don't own take actions you choose is such a violation) aren't fine, however.

Finally, when I gave my opinion you dismissed it because it didn't have sufficient evidence to support it. This is a contradiction. The way I learned the term, opinion in a scientific context (and this is a science subforum) means a conclusion without supporting data. Once you have supporting it's no longer an opinion. This is no minor quibble, seeing as how I've provided far more data for my conclusion than you have (consultant pricing methods, comparison data, pointing out various pertanent bits of common knowledge, that sort of thing). If you want opinions, you can't reject unevidenced statements. If you want evidence, you have to provide some. Honestly, it's your choice--I don't care either way. I'm merley pointing out a confusing inconsistency in your posts.

 

[DC]

As for what's wrong with me, ask around. There are apparently people with lists.

As for the term "demand", I had assumed that you didn't own your own business. If you do, and want to put CO2 data on your labels, cool, go ahead--though since you're unaware of the costs, I'd STRONGLY encourage you to hire an accountant.

If you DON'T own your own business, that means you're trying to convince others to do so. And on this forum, that means legislation--which is a demand if the term has any meaning. ALL legislation relies on force; the fundamental argument is "We (the government) are bigger than you, and we'll hurt you if you don't do as we say". Now, this doesn't necessarily mean that such demands are wrong. I call them "standing threats": things like "If you rape someone, I'll shoot you", or "If you break into my house, my dog will attack". We demand that people don't violate rights (at least, in most Western countries), and that's perfectly fine. Demands to violate rights (and demanding a company you don't own take actions you choose is such a violation) aren't fine, however.

Finally, when I gave my opinion you dismissed it because it didn't have sufficient evidence to support it. This is a contradiction. The way I learned the term, opinion in a scientific context (and this is a science subforum) means a conclusion without supporting data. Once you have supporting it's no longer an opinion. This is no minor quibble, seeing as how I've provided far more data for my conclusion than you have (consultant pricing methods, comparison data, pointing out various pertanent bits of common knowledge, that sort of thing). If you want opinions, you can't reject unevidenced statements. If you want evidence, you have to provide some. Honestly, it's your choice--I don't care either way. I'm merley pointing out a confusing inconsistency in your posts.

you gave you opinion that is fine, i disgreed with your claim that it would be tremendous cost. and you provided nothing that would have convinced me that the cost would be tremendous. but surely you are free to hold your opinion. but i do not share that opinion.

and i did not demand it, i merely wanted to discuss it, that's all.
demanding it on JREF would be pretty pointless anyway it actually makes not the slightest bit of sense at all....

and also your "Governments demanding things from companies is a violation of rights" is pretty disconected from reality. we demand all kinds of things from companies if they want to be active in our market. regulations and laws are nothing unusal.
no need for paranoia.

 

[Dinwar]

you gave you opinion that is fine, i disgreed with your claim that it would be tremendous cost. and you provided nothing that would have convinced me that the cost would be tremendous.

Well, that's part of the issue I'm having: I don't know how much you know about how corporations function. I made the simplifying assumption that you knew about as much as I do--ie, you've seen glimpses of it, and have been able to piece together a general picture of how the corporate world works. I know that if you wanted to do this with the corporation I work for, or any of our clients, it would add a tremendous amount of work. No one in my corporation would question any of the areas I said costs would be added, and we all would understand the costs; so from my perspective I HAVE provided sufficient data. I've used similar arguments to justify some fairly expensive decisions in the past, and an online discussion is far less important than that.

Again, it's going to take an expert to figure out how much CO2 is involved, because the law WILL be incredibly convoluted (check out any section of NEPA if you doubt me). Experts don't come cheap. You're adding those person-hours to the cost of doing business, both for intellectual property and for material goods. Call it $150 for every person-hour and you'll probably be in the right ballpark. Then, again, there's managerial oversight, which can cost 3x the price of an expert's person-hour--or more. If you only produce one thing you can probably get away with shunting this off to your environmental compliance folks (who are often O&M folks in a different hat, meaning they're already over-worked). If you're a bigger firm, this is a new department (fortunately, that's actually factored into the $150/person-hour). Just DEVELOPING the plan is going to cost a good-size firm several tens of thousands of dollars. I know this, because I've helped develop similar plans. And what results does this get you? Nothing. Labels don't work.

Sure, if you want to compare the cost to the GNP it's not that much. But if you compare it to the benefits you're going to see, it's astronomical.

and i did not demand it, i merely wanted to discuss it, that's all.

I think a discussion of how you'll bring it about is pertanent. There are only three ways to implement this idea: do it yourself in your own company, tell companies you'll boycot them if they don't do it, or pass a law requiring them to do it. As I said, the first two I don't see any problems with--I think you're wrong and misguided, and the idea is dangerous, but it's within your rights to do it. The third option, not so much.

and also your "Governments demanding things from companies is a violation of rights" is pretty disconected from reality. we demand all kinds of things from companies if they want to be active in our market. regulations and laws are nothing unusal.

I generally disagree with this type of thing, actually. My argument isn't "This one example is bad, but the rest are okay". Rather, it's "This idea is bad, and this example of the application of the idea is bad". The topic isn't "Is instituting social change via legislation good?" The topic is a specific bit of social change. So that's what I focused on.

 

[DC]

Well, that's part of the issue I'm having: I don't know how much you know about how corporations function. I made the simplifying assumption that you knew about as much as I do--ie, you've seen glimpses of it, and have been able to piece together a general picture of how the corporate world works. I know that if you wanted to do this with the corporation I work for, or any of our clients, it would add a tremendous amount of work. No one in my corporation would question any of the areas I said costs would be added, and we all would understand the costs; so from my perspective I HAVE provided sufficient data. I've used similar arguments to justify some fairly expensive decisions in the past, and an online discussion is far less important than that.

Again, it's going to take an expert to figure out how much CO2 is involved, because the law WILL be incredibly convoluted (check out any section of NEPA if you doubt me). Experts don't come cheap. You're adding those person-hours to the cost of doing business, both for intellectual property and for material goods. Call it $150 for every person-hour and you'll probably be in the right ballpark. Then, again, there's managerial oversight, which can cost 3x the price of an expert's person-hour--or more. If you only produce one thing you can probably get away with shunting this off to your environmental compliance folks (who are often O&M folks in a different hat, meaning they're already over-worked). If you're a bigger firm, this is a new department (fortunately, that's actually factored into the $150/person-hour). Just DEVELOPING the plan is going to cost a good-size firm several tens of thousands of dollars. I know this, because I've helped develop similar plans. And what results does this get you? Nothing. Labels don't work.

Sure, if you want to compare the cost to the GNP it's not that much. But if you compare it to the benefits you're going to see, it's astronomical.

I think a discussion of how you'll bring it about is pertanent. There are only three ways to implement this idea: do it yourself in your own company, tell companies you'll boycot them if they don't do it, or pass a law requiring them to do it. As I said, the first two I don't see any problems with--I think you're wrong and misguided, and the idea is dangerous, but it's within your rights to do it. The third option, not so much.

I generally disagree with this type of thing, actually. My argument isn't "This one example is bad, but the rest are okay". Rather, it's "This idea is bad, and this example of the application of the idea is bad". The topic isn't "Is instituting social change via legislation good?" The topic is a specific bit of social change. So that's what I focused on.

actually i did not really envision a social change coming from that. merely to give the people that would like to make decisions also including CO2 of products, hte possibility to have the information needed to do it.
i for example would like to include CO2 into my decisions. but mostly i have not the slightest idea how much CO2 went into the production of a product.
and i am not convinced that it is a good idea. that is why i wanted to debate it. but found your argument not convincing at all, and your "attacks" on me turned me further away also.

maybe those labels would not be needed once we have proper CO2 taxes in place. then the CO2 is reflected in the price and this has a much higher potential to bring social changes that are needed.

 

[Dinwar]

actually i did not really envision a social change coming from that. merely to give the people that would like to make decisions also including CO2 of products, hte possibility to have the information needed to do it.

Bovine byproduct. The information already exists for anyone who's interested, so if this was your actual goal you'd know you've already won.

i for example would like to include CO2 into my decisions. but mostly i have not the slightest idea how much CO2 went into the production of a product.

So you expect others to do the work for you. That's the only logical conclusion to be drawn here. You believe it's fast, cheap, and easy to add this stuff to a label. Well, it should be equally fast, cheap and easy to find it out for yourself. You don't seem willing to do so, however. I'll bet that your reasons--whatever they are--are pretty similar to the reasons companies don't do this for you already.

maybe those labels would not be needed once we have proper CO2 taxes in place. then the CO2 is reflected in the price and this has a much higher potential to bring social changes that are needed.

At least you're admitting it now.

From the thread on GMO it's obvious that you consider labeling the solution to all of society's ills, and I'm never going to convince you otherwise. I'll stop trying.

 

[DC]

Bovine byproduct. The information already exists for anyone who's interested, so if this was your actual goal you'd know you've already won.

So you expect others to do the work for you. That's the only logical conclusion to be drawn here. You believe it's fast, cheap, and easy to add this stuff to a label. Well, it should be equally fast, cheap and easy to find it out for yourself. You don't seem willing to do so, however. I'll bet that your reasons--whatever they are--are pretty similar to the reasons companies don't do this for you already.

At least you're admitting it now.

From the thread on GMO it's obvious that you consider labeling the solution to all of society's ills, and I'm never going to convince you otherwise. I'll stop trying.

why do people tend to this extremism and dishonesty?
for example i did not promote any labeling on guns to reduce murder rates....

and no i do not have the information, because mostly i have no clue what process a company uses or where they imported parts or raw material for the end product from etc etc. many things i don't know and companies are not willing to tell me where exactly they buy theyr parts from etc. so your claim that people have the information already is simply not true at all.
i see no point in discussing this with you.

 

[Brian-M]

Would this label include the CO2 cost of delivery to final destination?

 

[Skeptical Greg]

Has anyone ever looked into the environmental impact of carbonated beverages?

Don't they result in tons of CO² being released into the atmosphere ?

 

[geni]

Would a CO2 label on products be a good idea? should it be mandated to label the CO2 emissions that went into the production and transport etc of a product?

To all intents and purposes it already exists and is called the price.