Europe, Boring Until it's Not

[heydaralon]

I have twenty thousand Republic Dactarians.

[Speaker to Animals]

It literally involves adding the carbon footprints of your inputs to the carbon emissions in your manufacturing process. That's it.

In a world where global weather, soil quality, greenhouse gas emissions from growing, rearing, farming, processing, transporting, and storing food all remain absolutely static, it might be that simple.

In our world where each of those factors will be variable over even short periods of time, the idea that you can crunch a number for dummies that actually represents anything is laughable. The number will be largely meaningless, and even worse, used as a weapon to influence winners and losers in the marketplace.

We are not looking for perfect numbers. We are looking for useful estimates. There is nothing wrong with estimating the carbon footprint and putting that on the package.

[DBTrek]

There's nothing wrong with putting Super Bowl predictions on food either.
It's just not particularly useful information, nor does it have anything to do with the contents of the product you plan to ingest.
So why do it?

[heydaralon]

Upon reading this exchange, I started doing some googling of carbon footprints. This article by the Washington Post is actualy against carbon tax, and claims that it doesn't even reduce emissions.

https://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/al ... eedfb77759

[nmoore63]

It literally involves adding the carbon footprints of your inputs to the carbon emissions in your manufacturing process. That's it.

Oh to be naive again.

https://www.heraldtribune.com/news/2017 ... milk-label

The ruling overturns a decision last March in which a federal judge sided with the Florida Department of Agriculture, which said that, under state and federal law, skim milk can’t be sold as skim milk unless vitamins in the milk fat are replaced so it has the same nutritional value as whole milk.

The government shut down a man for selling skim milk as "Skim Milk."

He had to spend $400,000 to win the battle to sell skim milk.

If the government can fuck up "what is skim milk" they sure as shit can fuck up "what is the carbon footprint of x"

[C-Mag]

Urbanites who convince themselves they are living a more environmentally efficient, and sustainable lifestyle are true the useful idiot masses that tyrants love.

[Speaker to Animals]

It literally involves adding the carbon footprints of your inputs to the carbon emissions in your manufacturing process. That's it.

Oh to be naive again.

https://www.heraldtribune.com/news/2017 ... milk-label

The ruling overturns a decision last March in which a federal judge sided with the Florida Department of Agriculture, which said that, under state and federal law, skim milk can’t be sold as skim milk unless vitamins in the milk fat are replaced so it has the same nutritional value as whole milk.

The government shut down a man for selling skim milk as "Skim Milk."

He had to spend $400,000 to win the battle to sell skim milk.

If the government can fuck up "what is skim milk" they sure as shit can fuck up "what is the carbon footprint of x"

What the hell does that have to do with printing a number on labels?

[SuburbanFarmer]

It literally involves adding the carbon footprints of your inputs to the carbon emissions in your manufacturing process. That's it.

Oh to be naive again.

https://www.heraldtribune.com/news/2017 ... milk-label

The ruling overturns a decision last March in which a federal judge sided with the Florida Department of Agriculture, which said that, under state and federal law, skim milk can’t be sold as skim milk unless vitamins in the milk fat are replaced so it has the same nutritional value as whole milk.

The government shut down a man for selling skim milk as "Skim Milk."

He had to spend $400,000 to win the battle to sell skim milk.

If the government can fuck up "what is skim milk" they sure as shit can fuck up "what is the carbon footprint of x"

What the hell does that have to do with printing a number on labels?

Nothing. It’s a feminist/Marxist plot.

[Montegriffo]

Calculating an estimate of carbon usage is about as accurate as the estimate of saturated fats contained in the package. It's not perfectly accurate, but it's a good estimate and serves a useful purpose for some people.

This is where you're wrong. Calculating a carbon footprint is considerably more subjective than calculating grams of saturated fat. There error rate on calculating saturated fats is going to be relatively small given the few factors contributing to that value. Carbon footprint has exponentially more factors affecting it, and therefore will reflect inaccuracies several magnitudes greater than any nutritional data. In fact, the error rate on the carbon footprint value is going to be so inaccurate as to be a largely useless number for anything except influencing consumer sentiment.

So your question is actually "What's your problem with the government mandating that a wildly inaccurate carbon scoring system be labeled on food", and my answer is "It's wildly inaccurate".

/shrug

Where's that side of the can do attitude which put a man on the moon?

[heydaralon]

You mean renting a movie set in Nevada and paying all the "astronauts" to keep quiet?