Europe, Boring Until it's Not

[The Conservative]

This is why I support authoritarian measures on this, I just don't think we will do anything otherwise.
Of course, it gets interpreted as just another socialist, wealth distribution scheme by those who think taxation is theft and all government is bad.
/shrug

Should we consider humanely dispatching the mentally retarded, the elderly with dementia?
They are really just sucking up resources and causing harm to the planet with no return.

Is this the bit where I rant about the other side having nothing except shouting ''Nazi''

So, you don’t have a serious response? Good to know.

[Montegriffo]

Should we consider humanely dispatching the mentally retarded, the elderly with dementia?
They are really just sucking up resources and causing harm to the planet with no return.

Is this the bit where I rant about the other side having nothing except shouting ''Nazi''

So, you don’t have a serious response? Good to know.

Not if the question isn't serious I don't.
Some people, however, have real problems recognising sarcasm.
Now stop your pathetic attempts at gotcha's, it contributes nothing.

[The Conservative]

Is this the bit where I rant about the other side having nothing except shouting ''Nazi''

So, you don’t have a serious response? Good to know.

Not if the question isn't serious I don't.
Some people, however, have real problems recognising sarcasm.
Now stop your pathetic attempts at gotcha's, it contributes nothing.

You couldn't handle my level of sarcasm, don't try to even evade the question, because if by now you should know, I don't humor.

[SuburbanFarmer]

We know.

[DBTrek]

ps - it's up to you to prove your assertions not me to disprove them. If you are worried about being wrong I could quote the relevant facts so you can dismiss them as cherry picking if you want.

Absolutely wrong. You're the agent agitating for change, the onus is on you to demonstrate that your change is effective and/or necessary. As you don't even grasp all the factors that influence a carbon footprint number I expect we'll be waiting a long, long time for you to get your argument put together.

I've had a quick look through the relevant sections now and it seems to be very thorough and takes many factors into account.
There are standard forms to fill out and evidence is required to show fuel use etc.
Methods are provided to estimate averages so your cow burp point is mute.

Indeed - a self-reported metric that the government might "check into" one day. Sounds sciency-as-fuck. No doubt. But you seemed to miss the most glaring issue highlighted in the big cartoony flow chart on pages 6-7. Where does the calculation come in for food products? We've got this:

* Calculate emissions from activities which fall into scopes 1 (e.g. boiler; owned vehicles) and 2 (e.g. purchased electricity)

-and-

* Collect activity data e.g. electricity use and fuel from bills, invoices and receipts, vehicle mileage

But none of that tells us how much carbon was created to fertilize, nurture, and grow a field of carrots. Of course, we'd also need to know how many carrots were grown if we're going to label the carrots individually for their carbon footprints. But we can't even label them as a group because we don't know how much fuel was used to grow carrots vs how much fuel was used for employees to drive around on non-carrot specific work tasks. Employees driving to the carrot fields to work added to the carbon foot print of the carrot. Those driving to lunch and back did not (they added to the footprint, but not on behalf of carrots).

Of course, we can avoid all this messy busy-work by simply offshoring it to China. After all, the chart clearly states:

Which parts of your organisation do I need to collect data from? -> I do not own 100% of my organisation -> Identify the operations to collect data from


Excellent! I have 2000 Chinese farmers working the fields with diesel burning farm equipment, but I'm only a 51% share holder in the company and my own office only has a single LED light. I walk to work. So my 51% of the company (the non-field work part) creates almost no GHG's, divided by three hundred thousand carrots. You can ask the Chinese farmers to fill out their side of the paper work, but I don't think they speak English, so good luck. Maybe you can try to bind them with an international treaty or something.

[The Conservative]

We know.

So, why beat a dead horse?

[Montegriffo]

page 12

It may
be chall engi ng to col lect dat a from
these
overseas
operations
so you may
wish
to init ially
f
ocus
on measur
ing and cal culat ing emissions
from
UK operations.
Howev
er, you should
make
best
endeav
ours
to col lec t dat a from
overseas
operations
to give
a complet
e picture
of your
operati
ons in line wit h your
financ
ial reports.
You wil l need
to make
it clear
when
reporting
your
tot al gl obal
greenhouse
gas em issions
any geographical
areas
you hav e not included

[DBTrek]

"I made 'best endeavors' to reach the Chinese farmers. No luck. One LED light divided by three hundred thousand carrots. Print that carbon footprint label up. Distribute the "information" to the masses, that they might make informed decisions which will really have an impact on the planet."

So we see the Americans can't even get their carbon footprint website to link properly, and the British have loopholes that we could pilot 727's through.

But we only see this because I took the time to actually look at the processes others here endorsed completely, sight unseen.

Who hates information again?
Looks like people who despise others questioning their blind faith in government hate information.
After reviewing the "information" I can see why - what a clusterfuck.

[Montegriffo]

page 35

gui dance
does not spec ify a mi nimu m level of rep ortin g.
Organi
sations
are
enc ouraged
to foll ow the com plet eness
principle
and ac count
for 100%
of emission

Bear in mind this pdf is in relation to businesses and not food products.
Food labelling is only in the planning stage so I've not been able to find info on the exact methods which will be used.
No matter how thorough the methods may be they will never please someone against the labelling in principle.

[DBTrek]

I'm not against labeling.
I'm against passing alchemy of as hard science and engaging in mass social manipulation through false advertising.

I'd go for GMO labels, because it's easy to determine whether a food was genetically engineered, and because it has to do with the actual food.
I'm against carbon footprint labels because they're ridiculous to calculate with any accuracy, and it has nothing to do with the contents of what a consumer plans to eat.

If a business wants to do its own carbon-footprint label anyway, cool. As we've seen in this thread, there are plenty of consumers who would be happy to buy your shit, sight unseen, simply because you posted some bullshit number up on your label. I encourage aspiring entrepreneurs to give it a try.