Europe, Boring Until it's Not

[Montegriffo]

Certainly not my argument. My argument is simply that it would be virtually impossible to calculate with any reasonable amount of certainty given how supply chains work. Even just in the US I can get the same product shipped to me from a dozen different places with a dozen different locations around the country they ship/warehouse from. They could travel by railroad for some of it, or probably just trucked, through all kinds of different routes. If it comes from say China the ship could've stopped/loaded/unloaded at several ports along the way, taken different routes, probably unloaded in CA or WA where it then comes by truck across country by who knows what route...

The only way you could possibly even close to accurately handle that is to label it with "carbon footprint" at its destination (or close to it). So you slap the CF label on those 3000 mile bananas in London when they get there, where maybe you actually have enough tracking & fuel usage information on whatever path it took to get there to do it semi-accurately for "the UK". OK... Now do that for millions of items coming into your country on a monthly basis. And don't forget to add in the *added* carbon footprint of all the labels and ink you'll be consuming to do that, so you're effectively burning even more carbon "so people can be informed".

(Side note: you want a "carbon footprint" clusterfuck... I ordered something the other year that shipped from southern California... A week later on USPS tracking I see it's in Springfield MA, good I think, he here in a day or two (via NJ, because it typically goes from 50miles North of me to their sorting center 60miles South of me,before heading back up to me). A week goes by and the next update shows it in Tacoma WA, then it leaves there and another week goes by before it gets here. Three complete traverses of the US, 9000 miles, for a $20 item. Can't imagine the totally wasted carbon footprint of that.)

The number should not account for distribution and retail, only the footprint up to the point of manufacturing.

That really is not difficult to estimate in terms of averages, since all your inputs at any point have calculated the same things.

Well, so far we seem to be focused on food here, but what about other things? I mean, it you are *really* concerned about carbon footprint shouldn't we be labelling all those cheap plastic toys from China (it being the holidays and all)? What about cars? If I buy a Toyota made in the US is that greener than one made in Mexico? JApan? Or what if I buy a BMW? Shouldn't we label those too if you're all concerned about carbon footprint? How about that toothbrush you bought? Toothpaste? shampoo? Your deodorant? Your computer?

The reason we are talking about food here is that that is what the plan, to introduce labelling information on, is.
Absolutely we could do it for all products but you have to start somewhere.

[Speaker to Animals]

Certainly not my argument. My argument is simply that it would be virtually impossible to calculate with any reasonable amount of certainty given how supply chains work. Even just in the US I can get the same product shipped to me from a dozen different places with a dozen different locations around the country they ship/warehouse from. They could travel by railroad for some of it, or probably just trucked, through all kinds of different routes. If it comes from say China the ship could've stopped/loaded/unloaded at several ports along the way, taken different routes, probably unloaded in CA or WA where it then comes by truck across country by who knows what route...

The only way you could possibly even close to accurately handle that is to label it with "carbon footprint" at its destination (or close to it). So you slap the CF label on those 3000 mile bananas in London when they get there, where maybe you actually have enough tracking & fuel usage information on whatever path it took to get there to do it semi-accurately for "the UK". OK... Now do that for millions of items coming into your country on a monthly basis. And don't forget to add in the *added* carbon footprint of all the labels and ink you'll be consuming to do that, so you're effectively burning even more carbon "so people can be informed".

(Side note: you want a "carbon footprint" clusterfuck... I ordered something the other year that shipped from southern California... A week later on USPS tracking I see it's in Springfield MA, good I think, he here in a day or two (via NJ, because it typically goes from 50miles North of me to their sorting center 60miles South of me,before heading back up to me). A week goes by and the next update shows it in Tacoma WA, then it leaves there and another week goes by before it gets here. Three complete traverses of the US, 9000 miles, for a $20 item. Can't imagine the totally wasted carbon footprint of that.)

The number should not account for distribution and retail, only the footprint up to the point of manufacturing.

That really is not difficult to estimate in terms of averages, since all your inputs at any point have calculated the same things.

Well, so far we seem to be focused on food here, but what about other things? I mean, it you are *really* concerned about carbon footprint shouldn't we be labelling all those cheap plastic toys from China (it being the holidays and all)? What about cars? If I buy a Toyota made in the US is that greener than one made in Mexico? JApan? Or what if I buy a BMW? Shouldn't we label those too if you're all concerned about carbon footprint? How about that toothbrush you bought? Toothpaste? shampoo? Your deodorant? Your computer?

Would Teslas even sell if the "green" people really knew their carbon footprint (50+% of U.S. Electricity is from coal)? Maybe we'd need more nuclear plants, they're "green" right? Or more solar - China (the biggest polluter in the world probably) can make the panels for us.

The point about Teslas is exactly why I like this idea.

I am supportive of the Tesla project because I want for us to transition to predominantly electric vehicles. But if you are buying these things for the "environment", then fucking come on.


Maybe instead of thinking of it in terms of a carbon footprint, we should think of it in terms of simple ranks, like 1-5. You guys seem to be thinking of this as if consumers want to know exactly what their carbon footprint is, which is impossible, when in reality we are looking more for an easy guide to see the general direction of our consumption changes.

For instance, a body fat measuring device is inaccurate as fuck. I don't use the one at the gym to figure out what my body fat percentage actually is. I just use it each week to see if I am gaining or losing body fat. A simple indication on the package lets people know, generally, whether purchasing one product or another is going to increase the rate at which they contribute to pollution or decrease it.

[Ph64]

Information is key if we wish to be more informed, seems so obvious to me that it shouldn't need stating.

And education is key to being able to act appropriately on information.

Just recently I've learned that words are "violence", that asking someone "where are you from" is a "microagression", a group at a school in the UK informed me that the Soviet gulags really weren't bad places at all, that we just haven't tried socialism the "right" way yet, and that Venezuela is a far better place than the US. Apparently a lot of people out of our education systems can't find Chile or Vietnam on a map, don't understand finances or how companies really work (other than that they're "evil" - unless of course they're silencing conservative voices, then they're A-ok).

I have great faith in our education system, I'm sure those gender studies and transgender dance degrees will have them earning enough to make informed green choices in the future.

[Fife]

Meanwhile to those in Europe, Merry Christmas and have another shot of glühwein. You never know which one will be your last.

Last Days of the European Christmas Markets

[Montegriffo]

Information is key if we wish to be more informed, seems so obvious to me that it shouldn't need stating.

And education is key to being able to act appropriately on information.

Just recently I've learned that words are "violence", that asking someone "where are you from" is a "microagression", a group at a school in the UK informed me that the Soviet gulags really weren't bad places at all, that we just haven't tried socialism the "right" way yet, and that Venezuela is a far better place than the US. Apparently a lot of people out of our education systems can't find Chile or Vietnam on a map, don't understand finances or how companies really work (other than that they're "evil" - unless of course they're silencing conservative voices, then they're A-ok).

I have great faith in our education system, I'm sure those gender studies and transgender dance degrees will have them earning enough to make informed green choices in the future.

I'm not going to argue with anything you have said here.
I'm just going to say that dismissing books as a learning tool because they are never 100% accurate is not a good way of increasing the quality of the education system.

[Ph64]

The reason we are talking about food here is that that is what the plan, to introduce labelling information on, is.
Absolutely we could do it for all products but you have to start somewhere.

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. With the added bonus that nobody will want to immigrate to your country anymore.

[Montegriffo]

The reason we are talking about food here is that that is what the plan, to introduce labelling information on, is.
Absolutely we could do it for all products but you have to start somewhere.

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?

[Otern]

The reason we are talking about food here is that that is what the plan, to introduce labelling information on, is.
Absolutely we could do it for all products but you have to start somewhere.

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. With the added bonus that nobody will want to immigrate to your country anymore.

Pretty much this. Our carbon footprint is related to consumption more than anything else. It's ridiculous when environmentalists point at China as the big bad wolf, when we in the west are the ones buying their products, and their carbon footprint is driven almost entirely by their industry, which we fund as consumers.

Going back to traditional families, with the mother staying home, and the father working, with the same wages as he makes today, would do way, way more positive for the environment than switching to electric cars, abandoning nuclear power, and even removing gas power.

Not going to happen though. We like stuff, and we especially like to have more stuff than our neighbor. Same reasons communism failed, even though "it was a good idea in theory".

[Montegriffo]

The reason we are talking about food here is that that is what the plan, to introduce labelling information on, is.
Absolutely we could do it for all products but you have to start somewhere.

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. With the added bonus that nobody will want to immigrate to your country anymore.

Pretty much this. Our carbon footprint is related to consumption more than anything else. It's ridiculous when environmentalists point at China as the big bad wolf, when we in the west are the ones buying their products, and their carbon footprint is driven almost entirely by their industry, which we fund as consumers.

Going back to traditional families, with the mother staying home, and the father working, with the same wages as he makes today, would do way, way more positive for the environment than switching to electric cars, abandoning nuclear power, and even removing gas power.

Not going to happen though. We like stuff, and we especially like to have more stuff than our neighbor. Same reasons communism failed, even though "it was a good idea in theory".

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

[Ph64]

The reason we are talking about food here is that that is what the plan, to introduce labelling information on, is.
Absolutely we could do it for all products but you have to start somewhere.

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. We have a 5-cent bottle/can deposit here in CT, if you toss that beer/soda bottle/can in the trash you're tossing away 5-cents. It helped, I read that after they passed that in the 80s (iirc) we went from a tiny amount to 70% being returned for the money. I still know people that just toss them out though. "Maybe the homeless guys will pick them out of the trash".

The only ways I see to really make a dent, if that's what you want, is (tongue in cheek) implement socialism and go full Venezuea, or actual government intervention/force - tax it so you get less of it, or make it illegal so you get fined for it. Either of those, though, and well... France (maybe).