Europe, Boring Until it's Not

[Speaker to Animals]

Virtue signaling would be like posting your carbon footprint count on Facebook like some people do with their calorie counts.

Just using labeling data to make informed decisions is your own business.

Most of these dumbass arguments against a carbon print label could be applied just as well to the nutrition data. "But I use that data and rely upon" you might say. Yeah. Some other folks might use and rely upon the carbon data too.

It isn't going to fucking hurt you if companies print a number on the package. For fuck sake.

[Speaker to Animals]

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.

Not sure I agree with that at all. Cleaner industrial technology makes a big impact. Moving away from globalist food production and distribution would help (though reduce the food yields in general). Switching from one kind of technology for a substitute could help. If you have nuclear energy driving your domestic electricity, and most people switched to electric vehicles (assuming the infrastructure gets built to do so), then you at least reduce carbon emissions associated with transportation itself, if not the automobile manufacturing process.

Reducing carbon emissions is just another optimization problem, really, and people trying to fuck with any effort to quantify the very thing we are trying to optimize don't help one bit.

[Ph64]

Virtue signaling would be like posting your carbon footprint count on Facebook like some people do with their calorie counts.

Just using labeling data to make informed decisions is your own business.

Correct. Thus, when asked if someone else not buying something based on its carbon footprint would change my buying, I said no. Because that's their own business, and how the he'll would I even know...

...unless they were going around pronouncing how virtuous they are for cutting their carbon footprint?

[Montegriffo]

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.

I disagree,(you'll be shocked to hear) electricity output peaked in the 90's here in the UK. Regulations driving the manufacture of low energy goods are responsible for this. I have heard that going all-electric car use would only return us to those 1990's levels. Our energy production since the 90's has moved away from fossil fuels and towards renewable sources.
It is possible to maintain levels of economic growth without a corresponding increase in GH emissions.
Information on carbon footprints helps us to move away from the worst offending products and towards greener alternatives.

[Montegriffo]

In fact, the labelling on the side of electrical goods rating their energy efficiency is proof that more information can have a positive effect.

[Ph64]

Our energy production since the 90's has moved away from fossil fuels and towards renewable sources.

Might have something to do with North Sea oil production peaked in 2001/2 and has been declining ever since.

[TheReal_ND]

[Montegriffo]

Our energy production since the 90's has moved away from fossil fuels and towards renewable sources.

Might have something to do with North Sea oil production peaked in 2001/2 and has been declining ever since.

It has more to do with closing down coal-fired power stations and increasing the amount of nuclear, wind and solar used.
Oil was never the main fossil fuel used to produce electrical energy.

[Otern]

I disagree,(you'll be shocked to hear) electricity output peaked in the 90's here in the UK. Regulations driving the manufacture of low energy goods are responsible for this. I have heard that going all-electric car use would only return us to those 1990's levels. Our energy production since the 90's has moved away from fossil fuels and towards renewable sources.
It is possible to maintain levels of economic growth without a corresponding increase in GH emissions.
Information on carbon footprints helps us to move away from the worst offending products and towards greener alternatives.

It peaked, then it went down, as production in lower income countries could supply the goods at a better price. You use more electricity today than then, but not directly. It's being used for production in those other countries, and consumed in the west.

It's not possible to maintain levels of economic growth while at the same time reduce emission levels. The oil is there, the coal is there, gas is still there, we still want to make concrete, and we're going to exploit that. Renewable energy is the future, sure. But it's not in human nature to simply stop exploiting accessible resources. Not when exploiting those resources will give them an edge over competing economies.

[Ph64]

In fact, the labelling on the side of electrical goods rating their energy efficiency is proof that more information can have a positive effect.

I don't disagree with that. But again, it works because it's cost to *my* wallet. If I get rid of that old A/C unit and replace it with one that's 50% more efficient, it uses less electricity and my electric bill goes down.

If my electric bill stayed the same, what do you think would motivate me to *spend* $200 say on a new one if the old one still cools just fine? Nothing. But if you tell me if I give up the old one (to recycling and coolant getting reclaimed hopefully) and spend that $200 on a new one then the $10/month savings will pay for it in under 2 years and then save me money every month after... Ok.

What am *I* gaining by your food labelling if the price of the "greener" option is the same or more expensive? What I see is companies charging a few cents more to pay for redesign of their labels to add carbon footprint... my price goes up a few cents and I have less money than I did before you mandated labelling.