To Carbon Label
or not toCarbon Label?
Alan Knight
I believe (know) product labels, if designed well and thought through can make a very important contribution towards embedding SD into products.
So at face value I should be a fan of carbon labels…
(17 years in labels! – B&Q, FSC, ACCPE, Roundtable on Sustainable Consumption, FISS…)
B&Q – small steps over time – driven by the label.
10% of world’sproductive
forests FSC’ed
- Marks and Spencer- Wyevale Garden Centres
1993
19971995
2000
WWF Buyers’Group
One solution inspires others:
ACCPE – the Advisory Panel of Consumer Products and the
Environment”
“I want a UK Eco-labelling Scheme” Micheal Meacher,
1997
“No Minister”
“ACCPE Toolbox”Success stories – issue specific, bespoke for product
Different tools over time to drive change
Choice editing =
no to G’s to C’s
RichmondParking fees
Road taxbanding
£25 congestion charge
Different tools over time
Choice editing =
no to G’s to C’s
Labels drive change; B&Q = FSC and Paint- ACCPE = car label and HIPs
15% - brewing
4% - malting
81% - Manufacture packaging
(Distribution?)
0.2% - crop production
BUT - Foot-printing is vital to drive the right decisions…
What does this mean for carbon labelling?
The lesson from B&Q; ACCPE and SDC creates…
discomfort
1) Climate change is not the only problem in town…
The Stuff Debate
If everyone in the world used the same amount of stuff
as we do in UK …
Finite limits of everything!
FSC was about Finite Limits
FISS – Sustainable Food = balance between:
Does this help…
2) Who will use this tool and how?
Business and public policy drives change – not the consumer….
Different labels are different for a reason
RichmondParking fees
Road taxbanding
£25 congestion charge
Different tools over time
Choice editing =
no to G’s to C’s
Product Roadmaps (clothes, cars, lighting… 10x)
DEFRA Leading the way
Label
Choice editing
Standards
Product Roadmaps
4) Product use?
Food preparation?
Product use…
“Boil what you need”“Boil what you need…”
“Boil what you need”“Boil what you need…”
Not just energy related…
What about use?
Co2 labelled peat is coming!
Carbon to dig and move peat to store – included
Carbon from decay of peat – not included
Decay = x4 more Co2
Labelling – should not be a distraction for better solutions
4) What about green electricity?
And everyone’s going green
Nuclear?
Do offsets and labels fit together?
5) What about personal carbon budgets (trading)
Looking for reassurance that:
1) Labels will not distract us from big issues for some products
2) Labels will not distract us from better tool solutions (eg choice editing)
3) Product use?
4) We deal with eco electricity and nuclear queston
5) We know how to separate from personal footprint / budget
“Law of unintended consequences”
Why I worry is...
Knowing the embedded carbon of products is good…
Are we using the lessons from other labels and think tanks?
This is a huge commitment
I t will profoundly shape thedebate
Are we using the tool of foot printing in the best possible
way?