Europe, Boring Until it's Not

[Speaker to Animals]

Marking foods nutritional content has already been mandatory for decades.
Information on the carbon footprint and welfare standards is an extension of that.

Right. Just like half naked queers wearing feathered boas and making out on bicycles is an extension of MLKs march from Selma to Montgomery.

By adopting similar rhetoric and appearance two completely dissimilar things are quickly accepted as “related” by really dumb people.

“Arbitrary, unverifiable, carbon footprint info is the same as nutritional information. They’re both going to be labels on food. Duh.”

Target, Amazon, and the Walmart are going to love love LOVE these new carbon labeling regulations. It's the surest way to guarantee their domination of market share and to drive competitors out of the "free" market.

That's in addition to the "information" in the labeling being worth much worse than nothing.

Why? Nobody is required to purchase goods with a specific footprint. I don't see a problem with labels like this at all.

[DBTrek]

Well, excuse me for responding to your comment about nutritional advice. If you thought it wasn't related why did you bring it up in the first place?

Link to arbitrary and unverifiable please or is that ''just your opinion man''.

1. I mentioned nutritional information because it’s actually something verifiable we can state about the food you consume. It matters, being an integral part of a product you plan to ingest.

2. Carbon footprint info is neither verifiable nor integral information regarding the qualities of the product you plan to consume. Think about how carbon footprint numbers will be determined, and realize that even when challenged the government can easily claim “Well, conditions were different when you conducted your tests”. But they can’t claim the caloric content of a box of crackers has mysteriously changed due to “reasons”.

3. They who control the unverifiable numbers that influence consumer decisions hold great power. Power which can be exploited for personal or political gain.

All of this isn’t glaringly obvious to you at first glance?

Weird

[Montegriffo]

Fife hates free choice. He would rather we stay uninformed because ''government''.
Just to piss him off I'm going to provide him with some information to
dispute without him even knowing the validity of the source.

[Fife]

Right. Just like half naked queers wearing feathered boas and making out on bicycles is an extension of MLKs march from Selma to Montgomery.

By adopting similar rhetoric and appearance two completely dissimilar things are quickly accepted as “related” by really dumb people.

“Arbitrary, unverifiable, carbon footprint info is the same as nutritional information. They’re both going to be labels on food. Duh.”

Target, Amazon, and the Walmart are going to love love LOVE these new carbon labeling regulations. It's the surest way to guarantee their domination of market share and to drive competitors out of the "free" market.

That's in addition to the "information" in the labeling being worth much worse than nothing.

Why? Nobody is required to purchase goods with a specific footprint. I don't see a problem with labels like this at all.

1. Carbon labeling (Corporate "Social Score" labeling) will be a fantastic tool for the largest and best-connected corporations to fuck over smaller competitors, causing market failure harming consumers the most. See, e.g., https://mises.org/wire/expanding-food-labeling

2. The info in the carbon/corporate social score labeling will not only offer "information" to consumers that is worthless, it would almost certainly be harmful. See, e.g., any Google search of the failures of USDA-required subjective labeling.


What would be wrong with private firms competing to provide carbon/social scoring for food producers for the public? If this is something that people actually GAF about, why wouldn't a consumer be better suited to chose his preferred independent rating service to give him the information he wants? Also, what better way to out producers who lie and stretch about their practices? The USDA sure as shit can't accomplish that effectively. Not even close.

All that socialists want is for some dipshit regulator, who is the flunky of the strongest corporations, to the be the "info master" for subjective carbon/social scoring.

[DBTrek]

Word.

Put that in your carbon-neutral soapstone pipe and smoke it.

[Montegriffo]

Well, excuse me for responding to your comment about nutritional advice. If you thought it wasn't related why did you bring it up in the first place?

Link to arbitrary and unverifiable please or is that ''just your opinion man''.

1. I mentioned nutritional information because it’s actually something verifiable we can state about the food you consume. It matters, being an integral part of a product you plan to ingest.

2. Carbon footprint info is neither verifiable nor integral information regarding the qualities of the product you plan to consume. Think about how carbon footprint numbers will be determined, and realize that even when challenged the government can easily claim “Well, conditions were different when you conducted your tests”. But they can’t claim the caloric content of a box of crackers has mysteriously changed due to “reasons”.

3. They who control the unverifiable numbers that influence consumer decisions hold great power. Power which can be exploited for personal or political gain.

All of this isn’t glaringly obvious to you at first glance?

Weird

So you're saying it's unverifiable ''because reasons''?
Despite having no idea how the figures will be calculated.
You are justifying remaining in ignorance with ignorance.

Bravo DB, your long-awaited return is proving to be a great benefit to the forum.

[Montegriffo]

Target, Amazon, and the Walmart are going to love love LOVE these new carbon labeling regulations. It's the surest way to guarantee their domination of market share and to drive competitors out of the "free" market.

That's in addition to the "information" in the labeling being worth much worse than nothing.

Why? Nobody is required to purchase goods with a specific footprint. I don't see a problem with labels like this at all.

1. Carbon labeling (Corporate "Social Score" labeling) will be a fantastic tool for the largest and best-connected corporations to fuck over smaller competitors, causing market failure harming consumers the most. See, e.g., https://mises.org/wire/expanding-food-labeling

2. The info in the carbon/corporate social score labeling will not only offer "information" to consumers that is worthless, it would almost certainly be harmful. See, e.g., any Google search of the failures of USDA-required subjective labeling.


What would be wrong with private firms competing to provide carbon/social scoring for food producers for the public? If this is something that people actually GAF about, why wouldn't a consumer be better suited to chose his preferred independent rating service to give him the information he wants? Also, what better way to out producers who lie and stretch about their practices? The USDA sure as shit can't accomplish that effectively. Not even close.

All that socialists want is for some dipshit regulator, who is the flunky of the strongest corporations, to the be the "info master" for subjective carbon/social scoring.

UK Conservative government = Socialists.
Thanks for your valuable input Fife.
What would we do without your personal anti-government hobby horse infecting the majority of your posts?

[DBTrek]

So you're saying it's unverifiable ''because reasons''?
Despite having no idea how the figures will be calculated.
You are justifying remaining in ignorance with ignorance.

Bravo DB, your long-awaited return is proving to be a great benefit to the forum.

Well, I can’t say me return has yielded much better results for me either so the writing is likely on the wall.

But one last desperate attempt to get you to actually think - accurate carbon footprint measuring requires drilling down to the number of times your hamburger farted while alive. That number will never be constant over time and will require a bevy of data scientists to actually nail down - on every food product, everywhere. So the actual information you want is not obtainable as evidenced by the data-scientist to food-product ratio.

If the plan is simply to give the government the power to slap an arbitrary carbon rating on food based on its mode of transportation to your island, then you’re a fool. The carbon created by the raising, nurturing, and processing of your food will be completely replaced by the amount of carbon it takes a plane to fly from point A to point B. That number tells you jack shit about food, and a little bit about planes.

Derp.

[Montegriffo]

So you're saying it's unverifiable ''because reasons''?
Despite having no idea how the figures will be calculated.
You are justifying remaining in ignorance with ignorance.

Bravo DB, your long-awaited return is proving to be a great benefit to the forum.

Well, I can’t say me return has yielded much better results for me either so the writing is likely on the wall.

But one last desperate attempt to get you to actually think - accurate carbon footprint measuring requires drilling down to the number of times your hamburger farted while alive. That number will never be constant over time and will require a bevy of data scientists to actually nail down - on every food product, everywhere. So the actual information you want is not obtainable as evidenced by the data-scientist to food-product ratio.

If the plan is simply to give the government the power to slap an arbitrary carbon rating on food based on its mode of transportation to your island, then you’re a fool. The carbon created by the raising, nurturing, and processing of your food will be completely replaced by the amount of carbon it takes a plane to fly from point A to point B. That number tells you jack shit about food, and a little bit about planes.

Derp.

I'm seeing ''if'' and not much else in your post.
How about waiting for information on how these figures will be calculated before you dismiss them in order to stay in the dark.

[DBTrek]

I'm seeing ''if'' and not much else in your post.

Not surprising, but sad nonetheless.
/shrug