Consumer goods will be labeled with their carbon footprints
The Japanese government wants consumers to be aware of their impact on global warming, so the Japanese government is planning some special labels for products:
“We hope that displaying carbon footprints will raise awareness among consumers as well as companies of their emissions and motivate them to emit less C02,” said trade ministry official Shintaro Ishihara, who is unrelated to Tokyo’s governor by the same name.
The ministry’s research shows one example of carbon footprint using potato crisps.
A bag of crisps emits 75 grams (2.63 ounces) of carbon dioxide. Forty-four percent of the C02 comes from growing potatoes and another 30 percent from production of the processed food.
Another 15 percent comes from the packaging, nine percent from delivery and two percent from disposal of the bag.
Full RSS Feed
Call me evil if you like, but I’ll pay about as much attention to this as I do to the nutritional info on food packaging, the warning labels on cigarettes, and the instruction manuals of electronic gear.
Rate this comment:
0 
0
Companies can put whatever info they want on bags, but they should also include a warning that info about “carbon footprints” is totally made up bullshit.
There are no standards on any of this CO2 footprint and CO2 credits stuff. Anyone can make up any claim they want.
Where the hell do you start counting anyway? If you count CO2 from growing the potato, do you also get a credit for the CO2 the potato absorbs from the atmosphere in photosynthesis? How do you actually “count” the CO2 emitted from growing a potato? The average gasoline and thus CO2 emitted from the tractor per potato? Do you also count the energy and CO2 put into building that tractor? and then the energy and CO2 in building the tractor factory? and the energy and CO2 in making the steel and concrete to make the tractor factory? and the energy and CO2 from all the vehciels involved in making the tractor, the tractor factory, the concrete and steel…etc. etc. etc.?
There should aslo be 2 other warning labels
1. We are not sure if global warming is real, nor what causes it, but it is most likey the Sun.
2. Even if CO2 increases have an effect, the reduction in world tempertures, according to our very own models, from successful implementation of the Kyoto Protocols, is on the order of “preventing” 0.07 degrees of predicted temperature rises. The typical weather thermometer is accurate to about +- 1 or 2 degrees C. The global warming predcitions from 10 and 20 years ago, when compared to actual temperture data since then are “accurate” to worse than +- 500%. Seriously.
And the sweetest irony. If people decide, based on carbon footprint labels, to NOT buy food, and let it rot, it releases CO2 into the atmopshere anyway!
Rate this comment:
0 
0
The sun… good one. So, is the sun getting hotter these days? Maybe a good way to find that out is to somehow compare the amount of the sun’s energy (i.e. light) that reaches earth’s surface in the past to the amount of energy that reaches the earth’s surface now. Very difficult probably, but my guess is that there is actually less energy reaching the earth’s surface now because of higher particulate matter and emissions in the atmosphere from all these years of human activity. So, why isn’t it getting colder?
Rate this comment:
0 
0
Actually the output of the sun does vary, and we don’t know why. However Level3’s comment that we are not even global warming exists is disingeuous. The data fairly solidly supports a recent rise in mean temperature. The controversy is not over GW itself, but the degree to which it is man-made, and subsequently the degree to which we can or should do something about it. A big issue by GW deniers is the fact that a few decades ago we were supposed to be headed for a massive global cooling, and now scientists have “flip-flopped” and presumably are just as reliable as a politician. This innuendo is little more than propaganda: the difference lies in interpretation of the data and an increased knowledge of atmostpheric climate systems, not the underlying facts.
However, to quote Penn & Teller, this carbon footprint stuff is…
BULLSHIT!
Rate this comment:
0 
0
Yeah, I don’t deny that the output of the sun varies. Of course it does, virtually everything in nature has some sort of cycle. But to clarify, I was wondering in which direction the energy output of the sun is heading at this moment, up or down, and whether that would actually affect the temperature of the earth, particularly when you consider how the earth’s atmosphere handles the sun’s energy that it actually receives.
Unless they are completely and totally biased, the scientists’ conclusions and what they say to the public would be based on interpretation of the data, as you just said. And if over time the data suggests something different after closer inspection and increased knowledge, then the honest thing to do is to go by that. That’s hardly propaganda, that’s reporting the state of things as we know them to be right now. And I think any of these scientists, no matter what their conclusions, and if they do things right, are simply doing their best to tell us what they know. But I am not fond of people who simply blurt out weakly founded sweeping generalizations about climate change just to try to prove the hippies wrong.
I suppose the big problem in climate research, especially at this large of a scale (spatial and temporal) is being able to draw a cause-effect relationship, as you imply. You know, to say something causes another thing, you need a condition in which you have the alleged cause, and a separate condition without the alleged cause and then compare the outcome between the two. You just can’t do that in climate research so you’re forced to make predictive models and wait and see what happens. Bummer.
Rate this comment:
0 
0
“then the honest thing to do is to go by that”
Which is exactly why predictions of global cooling have been replaced by predictions of global warming.
Rate this comment:
0 
0
sigh.. yes, that’s what I’m trying to say. Back then, according to what scientists knew, they predicted global cooling (not all of them, I’m sure) and now, according to what they know they predict global warming (again, not all). I don’t see anything wrong with that, they’re just going by what they know. Would you rather have people ignore what they know now and stick with this global cooling idea just because it was the first accepted prediction made on the direction of climate change? That wouldn’t do us very much good, now would it.
Rate this comment:
0 
0
But we can’t assume that predictions of global warming are only as good as those earlier ones of global cooling. These are based on more data and more analysis.
Rate this comment:
0 
0
Although I agree with you on this being pretty ridiculous…
1) It is most likely counted from the energy to produce the actual potato chip. As in, the creation of the tractor itself wouldn’t be considered because it is already considered an asset of that company and probably not included in calculation.
The calculation is most likely based on machine-usage as opposed to an actual potato giving of C02. My best guess is they take how much gas or CO2 emissions come from harvesting the potatoes add that to the gas or CO2 emissions from running the factory then divide it by the average out put of potato chip bags per day. That’s my guess…but this is an internet post, so I’m not gonna bet my salary on it.
2) You’re dealing with old data that was proven wrong, but still shows global warming exists in some fashion. I mean, I was told in the 7th grade that we had 35 years max of oil left on the planet, but that’s obviously not the case. Research advances.
BUT, the current temperature trends don’t match the prior earth warming trends. You could cite a million reasons for that…but I highly doubt “the sun” is simply the cause for that. Besides, I’m sure the people who were cited in the research for the Kyoto Protocol didn’t use “typical thermometers”.
3) Let’s say global warming DOESN’T exist. It’s still good to be conscious of the planet that we’re living in. Personally, I’d rather have people aware of the impact that their trash puts on others than to have it sitting in the streets being an eyesore.
Rate this comment:
0 
0
You’d also have to include the CO2 emitted to make the potato chips that the potato chip factory workers eat.
Rate this comment:
0 
0
“Global warming” is still up to a huge debate as to how it’s measured, especially since satellite temperature measurements DON’T show warming, the “warming” is from ground-based thermometers. One very strong theory is that the very REAL “urban heat island” phenomenon is the main cause. Our concrete and steel cities, and towns and roads get hotter than the surrounding area. So limiting CO2 is the wrong approach, making “green” cities is the solution.
But the whole idea that there is “consensus” is BS, especially in the past 3 years or so, as more and more scientists are turning away from the IPCC scenarios and into more realistic ones as the science becomes better.
http://www.dailytech.com/article.aspx?newsid=8641
It’s pretty sad that most people still are driven by their politics, because they don’t or can’t understand the science. Even more sad that those very same people are the ones who scream the loudest and get the media attention, while the serious environmental sceintists [including yours truly] labor in near-anonymity and don’t have 100-foot houseboats and Nobel Prizes while setting world records for hypocrisy.
Sad that more people don’t read (and can’t understand) the actual scentific papers, because it’s much more effort than listening to a 15 second sound bite on TV.
Rate this comment:
0 
0
That report you link to is concerned with ideas about human contributions, not the existence of GW itself. I also wonder about this bit: “…neutral papers, refusing to either accept or reject the hypothesis.” What sort of wording was used, I wonder? Did they simply talk about GW without mentioning human activity at all?
Rate this comment:
0 
0
When I see the term GW, all I can think about is George W. and how fucked up his environmental policy is.
Rate this comment:
0 
0
I agree with Edwardhasnewgoggles. He said just what I was going to say, so now I don’t have to say it. Perfect: he’s saved me energy.
Rate this comment:
0 
0
Why does this feel like a marketing scam?
Rate this comment:
0 
0
just out of interest, is there any issue with the fact that humans emit CO2 when they breathe out? is there going to be a call for that to be reigned in sometime in the near future? and what about the somewhat less-healthy people – perhaps those who eat a lot of potato chips – who breathe more heavily than, say, someone like David Blaine, who aims to cut down on his CO2 emissions with each new crazy stunt he pulls…..?!
just a thought… it’d be good to know!
Rate this comment:
0 
0