Europe, Boring Until it's Not

[Montegriffo]

Actually the real solution is far easier, and requires no labelling of anything.

Consume less (including food, that'll help obesity and lessen medical costs & supplies), improve (and use) public transportation and drive less, buy a bicycle instead, etc. Stop providing so many choices, only provide low-carbon choices.

In fact, thinking about my last post, maybe the younger generation has it right, all we have to do is implement socialism and we'll get all those things, just like Venezuela, or the USSR. Our carbon footprint will go way down.

So you're saying...climbing on your favourite hobby horse to lead the charge against an idea that you have run out of arguments against isn't a diversionary tactic?

I'm saying that if you leave people with choices they will do what is in *their* best interest. For the vast majority of people they will choose price first, nutrition second (in the case of food), and then maybe they'll consider other things. Yes, the first two being equal, maybe they'll think about carbon footprint.

A lot of people love the Tesla/EV idea (even though it's "green" effect is marginal at best), most people can't afford one, many of those who can aren't really buying it based on its *actual* carbon footprint but rather based on its *perceived* footprint and being able to say they own one ("coolness" & virtue signaling).

Look, you're not gonna grow bananas in the UK (or iceland), at least not without greenhouses and growlights which instantly gives it a poor carbon footprint, especially to produce the volume you probably import. Wherever they come from, it's likely far cheaper than what it would cost to grow locally. Given the cost of bunker fuel and the economics of volume the difference in cost between the Virgin Islands and say Brazil is probably negligable, though hydrocarbon footprint from Brazil may be higher. Ok, so slap a tariff on Brazillian bananas, people will buy the other. Of course Brazil won't like that, that's how trade wars start. Consumers will still buy the cheaper VI bananas. Or tax bunker fuel for shipping, but that's global and you can't tax fuel in Brazil, so doesn't really work.

Regardless, you're talking a small portion of people who will buy the more expensive item. Carbon footprint be damned. People *might* do that for qualitatively different items - maybe I buy Heinz catsup because I don't like the taste/consistency of the cheaper store brand, but that a "personal luxury choice" based on my tastes, basically what I find in *my* best interest.

Label all you want I guess, I already make my choices about what I'm willing to do about my carbon footprint - I drive as little as possible, combine trips where I can, bought a smaller car this time (30+mpg sedan vs my old 18mpg SUV), recycle everything I can. I spent 10 years working mostly from home because the job allowed it (and it made little sense to drive 40+min each way to an office to conference with people around the country and work on servers 800miles away). Could I do better? Probably. Am I going to check every piece of food I buy for its carbon footprint? Not at all. I'll hit the local farmer's market in the summer occasionally (not always cheaper, but supporting local). Is that less carbon than imported? Like your beef example, maybe not - but it supports my local economy and to me that outweighs if it isnt to me.

Like I said, first world upper middle class problems. And I probably count as that, and I wouldn't buy more expensive based on carbon footprint. I will buy "made in USA" if I can, depending on the premium for it - but I'm far less likely to it it's 4x the price, and that's not based on any "green" thoughts.

Most people I know are struggling to pay a mortgage or rent, car payments, bills, put food on the table, and maybe if they're lucky splurge on something non-essential now and then. They're not gonna be looking at the carbon footprint on every piece of food they buy. The few people I know that do that buy organic food when they can, because they can afford it and figure it's healthier *for them* (not the environment, though it probably is that too).

I'm more of an environmentalist type than 99% of the people I know, just by recycling. Most people I know just toss everything in the trash.

What if you found out that a product has a much higher carbon footprint than you previously thought? Would that make you think about cutting down on your consumption of that particular product?
Would it have no impact on you but change someone else's buying habits? How would that affect you?

[TheReal_ND]

Like an electric car?

[Montegriffo]

Like an electric car?

Yes, like an electric car. Better info on the overall impact would be a good thing.
Then you could weigh up the pro's of living in a city without breathing exhaust fumes with the overall effects of electric car production. No one would be forcing you to choose between electric or internal combustion but at least you would be better informed.

[TheReal_ND]

Yeah good luck with that

[Montegriffo]

Yeah good luck with that

Thanks, I'm going to need it around here.

[SuburbanFarmer]

1 - you’re talking about giving a massive amount of market power to a single agency, and the government in general. Even if they manage not to fuck it up for political reasons,the special interests will take over in a heartbeat. Basically, lobbying for a lower number.

2 - what if you learn that EVs have a much higher carbon cost in manufacturing? You just sank the entire idea, in the mind of the public.

[TheReal_ND]

Even if they manage not to fuck it up for political reasons,the special interests will take over in a heartbeat. Basically, lobbying for a lower number.

Yeah but you repeat yourself

[Montegriffo]

1 - you’re talking about giving a massive amount of market power to a single agency, and the government in general. Even if they manage not to fuck it up for political reasons,the special interests will take over in a heartbeat. Basically, lobbying for a lower number.

2 - what if you learn that EVs have a much higher carbon cost in manufacturing? You just sank the entire idea, in the mind of the public.

1 - that is a good argument for debating the best way to compile the information on the side of your packaging, not one for dismissing it out of hand.

2 - Then that might lead to better production methods for EV cars PV panels etc.

[Ph64]

What if you found out that a product has a much higher carbon footprint than you previously thought? Would that make you think about cutting down on your consumption of that particular product?
Would it have no impact on you but change someone else's buying habits? How would that affect you?

Depends on what it is and how often I consume it. Speaking of bananas, I bought a bunch at the store the other day (and fairly frequently, I like a piece of fresh fruit in the morning after/with coffee)... Did I care where they came from? No. If I found out they had twice the carbon footprint of say oranges from Florida I could have bought would that have changed my decision? No. If the price of bananas doubled though, maybe if buy the oranges instead.

If I found out the beer I bought had a high footprint (I dunno, hops from Peru?), maybe I'd think twice about that company/brand. But then I don't drink that much, a 12pack lasts me a month+, and my habit for the past few years is I buy a different beer every 12pack (haven't repeated one in about 2years). I like trying different ones. So no, probably wouldn't matter. (And I drink craft beers, it i were a daily drinker I'm sure if he buying far cheaper beer and carbon footprint would be even less of a non-existent considerstion).

I drove my old Toyota 4Runner for 20 years, over 200k miles, it was just rusting away (CT y'know) and getting unsafe. Bought a Hyundai 2 years ago - price, standard transmission, and the least foo-foo electronics to break as possible were my selling points. Carbon footprint? Nah, not other than gas mileage. I'll probably drive this until it drops too.

I think I read somewhere it takes 5-7 years for you to consume as much in gas in energy as it took to make the car (it's carbon footprint basically)... If so I've certainly beaten that, so the footprint to make it becomes marginal after that point.

I honestly can't think of anything that carbon footprint would matter to me. Food *is* the only thing I really buy on a regular basis. I'm not exactly buying caviar either. I try to avoid HFCS laden stuff, I'm mainly concerned - as I said - with price and nutrition. *Maybe* if the cheaper item came with 4x+ the footprint of a slightly more expensive item, it equal taste/quality/nutrition, I might change...? But how likely is that? And would I be checking the label for that? Probably not.

And that's me, house fully paid off, car paid off (in a year, I took a 3yr loan because that was their minimum and I wouldn't get the $2800 incentive discount if I paid cash), single, living comfortably and below my means.

Now imagine your average person with a mortgage/rent, car loan, 2 kids, etc... or even better off people but with kids in private school, the boat, the jetskis, etc. Honestly most people I know live at or above their means and some are piled with CC debt. Carbon footprint over price? Yeah, right.

Might it change someone else's buying habits? I dunno, maybe, I'm not them.

Would that affect me? Hell no. Virtue signalling will get me to roll my eyes, not copy you.

[Otern]

Going slightly off topic here, what sort of effect on consumption would a carbon tax have?

Assuming a properly functioning carbon tax, where we properly address the sources of CO2, it would have the effect of less CO2 in the atmosphere at first.

Great.

But those carbon taxes got to be spent somewhere, right? Can't spend it on infrastructure, health care, so on, which lessens the tax burden on the population, as they'd just end up with more money to spend, and more to consume. So we're back at square one.

Or the carbon tax could be spent on renewable energy, making us independent from fossil fuels. Fine, get all those windmills and solar panels working, fire them up. They're now cheap, affordable, and we can continue consuming like in the fossil fuel age. Even better, we can consume more, once we've grown tired of all this green talk, and keep using the fossil fuels, in addition to our new green paradigm. Because now it's even cheaper.

End result, with or without carbon tax is the same. If we have an economy dependent on growth, which we all have. We can't reduce consumption. And we're not going to vote in anyone with the political platform of "halving your income". And whichever state that manages to vote in someone like that, will experience a financial collapse, like the Soviet Union, making a good warning for anyone else suggesting to follow their footsteps.

Basically the only thing that can reduce CO2-emissions, is less people in the world. Less people, less consumption. And it will happen one day, a massive die-off, giving the world a more sustainable population than the insane 8 billion we are today.