Carbon Labeling: Issues during design, implementation and execution
Why carbon labeling is difficult:My perspective is that this initiative is just a cog in the wheel and it will supplement, not supplant, consumer awareness about the way they consume products and how government regulates various facets of goods production, storage, transportation and all the way till they are consumed. In retails taxonomy, this will be deemed as cradle to grave intervention.
In today’s complex global supply chain, it is very difficult to make out the carbon footprint of the constituents that make up the whole. The sum of the parts is almost larger than the whole in this context.
Carbon labeling is not as easy as putting nutrition labels on food products or putting labels on produce/package foods about their provenance. The latter two are scientific facts and all the suppliers need to do is to put them on the products.
Carbon labeling is a moving target. Each product will have a constantly changing carbon footprint.
Typically a store carries in excess of 100,000 SKUs. Nutrition labeling is just for food, minuscule percentage of SKUs. We are indeed looking at a major exercise, logistically, operationally, and financially.
Same products will have different carbon footprints, depending on if they are packaged in small or bigger volumes. Rule of thumb is small package is bigger drain on resources, hence bigger carbon footprint.
Carbon labeling subsumes a whole gamut of activities, right before the product is even produced, and well after the product has reached the end consumer’s home.
Carbon footprint even before goods are produced:
Carbon labeling will have to take into consideration what the social/economic impact of the factory is, where the goods are being produced and how it’s workers live, as they will contribute to the carbon footprint for all the products manufactured in that factory/unit.
It will be important to consider how the power that the factory consumes is produced ( coal powered electricity will have a higher footprint than a nuclear one, at the same time, if the disposal of the nuclear waste is not proper than it will take the carbon footprint of that factory through the roof). It will be important to consider how the people that work in the factory live, how they cook( natural gas vs. wooden twigs vs. electric stove ), how the folks have been impacted by various government decisions( e.g. if they belong to a migratory population, then their carbon footprint is bound to be higher than a stationary population). And all this will in turn contribute to carbon labeling of goods produced by them.
Carbon footprint during storage/distribution:
The goods that are in stores that are near to the main distribution centers will have a lesser carbon label as they will travel less, consume less fuel for their transportation/storage.
Carbon footprint once goods are in end user’s home/office:
After the products leave stores and land in consumer’s home, carbon foot print will keep on ticking. E.g. frozen foods will have to be kept frozen and the more number of days they are in freezer more is the energy consumed, and more is the wear and tear of the refrigerator. So this will impact their carbon label. It will also matter how much the refrigerator has been stocked, as too little air flow in a congested fridge, is bound to increase the energy consumption.
Carbon footprint of number of products is dependent to a very large extent upon the final usage and consumption pattern. E.g. the carbon footprint of computer is dependent on how long the computer is used through the course of the day, how well it is serviced during it’s normal usage and how it is disposed off after the end of its active lifecycle.
Similarly a normal detergent’s carbon footprint ids dependent upon, whether it is used in front loading washing machine vs. top load washing machine, water temperature at which it is used. These are the factors that are almost impossible to decipher as they pertain to future consumption pattern.
A DVD player’s carbon footprint will be decided by how much it is hooked to power during its life.
Fatigue Factor:
Carbon labeling is not only going to be difficult, but also it might turn out to be just a number, unless bolstered by consumer awareness and government initiatives. Also if all the steps including mobilization of consumer awareness are not mobilized right now, carbon labeling runs the risk of fatigue factor and consumers might not give the required attention to it.
A case in point is the home energy usage meter, which the government has conceded, that it has not served its objective of encouraging people to save power, though initially it had created a lot of buzz. Reason is simple to unearth, people knew that they are consuming more electricity, but they were not elucidated on how to best operate their TVs, washing machines, ACs and computers to save power. So this once promising device was relegated as just another number crunching device.
Conclusion:
The practice of putting carbon label has its heart in the right place, but it has to be well supplemented by proper education of the consumers of what they can do to reduce the footprint of goods they purchase and services they consume. It has to be augmented by proper government efforts to ensure that all the environmentally good practices are implemented and social impact on the footprint is minimal. Caron labeling is a tentative indicator of the ecological impact of the various products. It is an exercise to initiate end users knowledge about environment and has to be wedged by another set of initiatives for it to achieve its intended purpose.
