Selfsufficientish.com

Is there only me who thinks this is a completely pointless exercise? T***o are apparently going to trial the labelling of certain products with their carbon footprint details. It seems great at first glance, but surely what happens to a product after purchase is just as important and totally unquantifiable.

Suppose I buy something with a 'low' score, what then? If I've driven 5 miles to the supermarket to buy it, shove it in a plastic bag, return home in my lovely monster 4x4, in the case of laundry detergent wash at 60C, then chuck the packaging in the bin, has knowing it's carbon footprint helped at all? I agree it would be nice to know exactly what a product has cost in terms of environmental impact, but if I'm not going to change any other part of my life-style it would seem to be pretty redundant. And might even be counterproductive if someone thinks that they've done all that they can when in reality this is far from the truth. It also smacks a little of the nanny state; don't worry, we'll do your thinking for you.

Too true. This is the big lie which shows their green credentials. Sorry, it does not wash. They are delighted to push out their waste packaging to us, saying sort it yourselves. I say watch what you buy and where you buy it.

The food with the lowest carbon footprint probably doesn't have a label on at all.

They'll probably have some daft guide like 'local' is anything from Britain... even though it has been shipped 500 miles to the packing centre and 500 miles back to the shop down the road from the farm... or Devon strawberries being sold as local in Ullapool.

I noticed that Walker's have started labelling their packets of crisps with a carbon footprint. But I felt that they would be better off working on introducing a recyclable packet instead. I also feel that carbon footprinting is difficult to quantify and a little label on a packet isn't really going to give us all the information I would want. For example, how would we know where they count the carbon from? Do they count the farmers carbon use in growing the potato, or do they just count the carbon used in the factory etc etc.

To be honest I feel that 'carbon footprinting' is becoming just another marketing buzzword, just like 'eco' and 'green' are as well, and whilst carbon footprinting is a useful tool I think people/businesses focus too much on carbon emissions, when there are other issues to consider as well.

That is absolutely correct. All means to dodge the important issues are being pursued by the 4 leviathons. They are so clever at manipulating the situation but I know if consumers shop elsewhere they will feel the pain!

eccentric_emma wrote:I noticed that Walker's have started labelling their packets of crisps with a carbon footprint. But I felt that they would be better off working on introducing a recyclable packet instead. I also feel that carbon footprinting is difficult to quantify and a little label on a packet isn't really going to give us all the information I would want. For example, how would we know where they count the carbon from? Do they count the farmers carbon use in growing the potato, or do they just count the carbon used in the factory etc etc.

this is the same as putting the KJ on crisps... or fat content. if you care about either of these. you should not be eating the crisps! same as carbon footprint. if you are worried about such things.. you should not have the crisps in the first place!!

Isn't the carbon footprint on the price tag?

? I dont think i understand what you mean, literally on the price tag? I don't know. Not in the shop I work in, it is printed on the packet.

eccentric_emma wrote:? I dont think i understand what you mean, literally on the price tag? I don't know. Not in the shop I work in, it is printed on the packet.

We have a fossil fuel based economy, so the best indicator of something's carbon footprint is surely its price tag.

Anyone agree, or am I being too simplistic?

Yeah, doesn't really work like that... supermarket charges the same price for New Zealand Apples or local apples, cheap toys from China, expensive local toys, etc, etc... so no, it isn't covered in the price tag...

Unfortunately I think it's often the case that the stuff with the larger footprint is cheaper!

i agree, often it is the case that we don't know the true price of things due to government subsidies etc

Annpan wrote:Yeah, doesn't really work like that... supermarket charges the same price for New Zealand Apples or local apples, cheap toys from China, expensive local toys, etc, etc... so no, it isn't covered in the price tag...

But perhaps not for much longer. A lot of this insane global trade in year-round produce was fuelled by cheap oil. Oil is not that cheap these days, so just perhaps sanity may preveil. I am known to be over optimsitic on occasion though!