A Conservative Policy Solution to Slow Down Climate Change?

[Alphaville]

the detective is a criminal

oedipus!

[Myakka]

I agree with 7Wannabee the detective is a criminal.

The real problem is that there is no consideration for the welfare of the planet in the system. It doesn't make anyone money to care about. It doesn't increase the power of the eilte. I see no signs that Biden's team is different about this than Trump's. So one system for destroying everything on the planet that does not effect any of those elites directly will be replaced by another.

[Alphaville]

I see no signs that Biden's team is different about this than Trump's.

https://www.npr.org/sections/biden-tran ... mate-envoy

[subgard]

My idea of a carbon labeling system was an attempt for a solution for the lack of education and corresponding empowerment among individuals.
Anything that would lead to this realization : "Wait a minute, evil corporations and government inaction isn't causing climate change. I am. I'm doing it by purchasing this product."
I was thinking of something a little less exact than a VAT style accounting system enforced by a large government bureaucracy.
Alcohol and tobacco warnings are accepted by the industry because they put everyone on the same foot.
So, requiring the same carbon number over an entire class of products (like all beef, all dried legumes, all airline miles) would achieve the educational result without giving a large litigious organization an edge over the little guy.

Firms could be allowed to dispute the government estimate in their advertising, but they would still have to let the consumer know that "The average carbon emissions for a liter of soda is x"

Entire industries would likely try to lobby for their particular product, but that would be much less than each company litigating every source in their supply chain.
They would more likely resort to "Here are the reasons why our actual carbon number is lower than the government estimate."
But, by simply raising the issue in advertising, they would raise public awareness of the number. (which is the point)

[Alphaville]

My idea of a carbon labeling system was an attempt for a solution for the lack of education and corresponding empowerment among individuals.

i think it’s a good concept and it was in my head when i started thinking about food and climate change.

i mean in less than 24 hours i have a decent heuristic to know what to eat a little better

thread here:
viewtopic.php?f=7&t=11726

not exactly a label, but i tend to be a glass half full kind of person, and i did use the shape of your idea to process info.

now i wanna know what’s the carbon footprint of my ipad, for real.

[Alphaville]

ok so

1. https://www.apple.com/environment/pdf/p ... pt2019.pdf
i don’t have that model (mine is older) BUT for 2019 it says:

iPad (7th generation)
 life cycle
87 kg carbon
 emissions3

iPad (7th generation) life cycle 
 carbon emissions
79% Production 6% Transport
14% Use
<1% End-of-life processing

3 Greenhouse gas emissions were calculated using a life cycle assessment methodology in accordance with ISO 14040 and 14044 standards and based on the iPad (7th generation) 32GB (Wi-Fi + Cellular) memory configuration.

there’ a little table that shows carbon footprints of various models, i can’t copypaste easily, but one model goes above 100kg (that’s 220lb roughly)

bottom line is, 100kg of gases is a lot of gases. i don’t know how to visualize this, but i used to buy coal for winter emergencies with my stove. this is a couple of big sacks.

i’m starting to see how much it takes to make “stuff” that is a lot carbon for one item. and that’s one item from a company that cares about reducing this footprint, i can’t even begin to comprehend other stuff.

tl;dr: it takes a lot of energy and damage to make our trash! at least in the case of the ipad the usage is the least part of it. so it makes sense to use it for as long as possible instead of getting a new one.

first it was @7w5 with air travel and now this. thanks for ruining my life guys

but seriously, thanks.

[tonyedgecombe]

If you compare that to driving. Burning a gallon (US) of gasoline creates about 9Kg of CO2 so you are talking about 100/9*25 = 275 miles of average US driving.

It's enough that you don't want to discard it before the end of its useful life but owning an iPad is nowhere near as bad as a long commute, flying or eating red meat.

[7Wannabe5]

Once again I’ll note that our genius leader already figured this out because in fossil fuel based economy $$$ spent is pretty darn good proxy for CO2 emissions. It’s like how Michael Pollan showed that almost everything we eat is made out of corn. If/when our economy becomes less fossil fuel based this will be directly reflected in calculation of 1 Jacob through Global Footprint factor. IOW, if you are spending more than 1 Jacob per year ( like me- still stuck at around $9600) then you are contributing to the problem.

This is even roughly reflected in, for instance, the price of beef vs cheese vs chicken vs eggs. So, one work around would be to eat cheap “waste” meats like chicken livers. This isn’t a cheat because would otherwise likely be dumped. This is an example of how we can already be living in the post-apocalypse scavenger era. OTOH, my extension of this basic principle to middle-aged divorced men may be more dubious and/or more analogous to fishing for Asian Carp.

[Alphaville]

If you compare that to driving. Burning a gallon (US) of gasoline creates about 9Kg of CO2 so you are talking about 100/9*25 = 275 miles of average US driving.

It's enough that you don't want to discard it before the end of its useful life but owning an iPad is nowhere near as bad as a long commute, flying or eating red meat.

yeah and this is the part that blew my mind: 1kg beef = 60kg co2?????

1kg beef = 6.67 gallons gasoline?

(roughly 1lb = 3.3gal)

i never had any idea about this. it’s off the charts.

i support some sort of label and general knowledge of the facts because we’re blind to them.

[Alphaville]

Once again I’ll note that our genius leader already figured this out because in fossil fuel based economy $$$ spent is pretty darn good proxy for CO2 emissions. It’s like how Michael Pollan showed that almost everything we eat is made out of corn.
[...]
This is even roughly reflected in, for instance, the price of beef vs cheese vs chicken vs eggs. So, one work around would be to eat cheap “waste” meats like chicken livers.

i used to operate like this but it turns out that no, carbon is its own thing. food production has its own emissions, supply chain is only an estimated 18% of its emissions. but the ruminant stomach runs independent of this.

eg. i can buy 1lb quality ground beef and 1lb organic chicken livers for $4/lb. same price. the carbon footprint of each is vastly different.

ground nuts are way cheaper than tree nuts but the carbon footprint of peanuts is multiples higher than walnuts or macadamias.

in fact there’s an inverse relation in some areas i think because crops that use oil-based fertilizers and pesticides are cheaper than those which don’t.

so in my markets global pink sludge is way cheaper than local grass-finished beef. grain finished beef increases weight over grass finished, lowering prices per lb, but increasing carbon. fossil fuel lowers market price while boosting emissions, which remain unpriced. more oil = more carbon = cheaper beef.

average consumer is blind to carbon because unpriced externalities do not enter the price mechanism. i.e. the price of oil does not reflect its carbon footprint.

[7Wannabe5]

When intensive (labor heavy) agricultural products are compared to extensive (labor light) agricultural products, the carbon footprint of the labor is not included, because the labor provides (food, shelter, etc) for themselves, but the price of the labor is included in the price. Intelligent management AKA information/design costs, which likely are included to some extent in organic or small-scale local production, is the biggest possible difference-maker in actual overall emissions in the system. OTOH, if you are starting from the premise that you wish all humans on the planet currently to survive as priority 1 then allotment of first 1 Jacob/year in wages for intensive agricultural workers or barbers or lawyers or massage parlor workers or any other service provider could be exempted. However, I think it is easier to just assign yourself approximately 12 hours of foraging /agricultural >> food prep work per week in conjunction with 1Jacob rule of thumb.

[Alphaville]

but carbon footprint unlike cost of labor or other factors is never included in any price.

we just send it “elsewhere” into “the big void,” wholly unaccounted for.

the problem is the earth is “round” and we’ve run out of elsewheres, so now have to pay the piper, yes?

but we’re still not counting or pricing carbon. it’s not a part of money. it’s outside money. can’t be currently measured in dollars digital yuans or any currency.

[subgard]

When intensive (labor heavy) agricultural products are compared to extensive (labor light) agricultural products, the carbon footprint of the labor is not included, because the labor provides (food, shelter, etc) for themselves, but the price of the labor is included in the price.

If this is true (and I'm not completely sure it is), then just figure out the average carbon footprint of labor and include it in the carbon number.
Then, consumers could figure out that dollars-spent=carbon-emitted on their own.
Either way, they need to know somehow how much carbon emissions their consumption is causing.

[Alphaville]

i think @7w5 is equating fossil fuels with all carbon emissions. which makes human labor look like a very efficient thing. and i was under the same impression, but i was wrong.

i’m starting to realize that a mechanized potato operation or almond orchard can emits less carbon than a quasi-neolithic human on foot with a machete and a few cows in the rainforest.

land use and ruminant stomachs and other factors do matter regardless of technology/transportation modes.

eta: for this reason, a potato eater in a honda civic is more carbon efficient than a beef eater on foot

[7Wannabe5]

True-ish, but you are kidding yourself if you think you can do better than reducing spending to 1 Jacob as first cut. Also, it’s not like CO2 is the only resource flow worth taking into consideration. For instance, almonds are highly water intensive. Poultry is more likely to mutate viruses. Covering landfills endangers minor species of seagulls. House cats are number two killer of songbirds. Etc. You can’t do just one thing and this tendency is multiplied when you act as consumer at a distance rather than local producer.

[Alphaville]

but i haven’t agreed to jacobs as units of anything yet

(especially when cash money as currently formulated does not account for externalities.)

not saying that you can’t, just that i can’t compute for myself, i’m in a different language game, looking for pareto efficiencies.

what’ a jacob? $7k?

[jacob]

It's however much I spend in a year. It's set by me trying to stay under limit of World GDP/world population/world ecological footprint which in 2020 comes to $6750/person/year. This is getting harder and harder and I'm currently failing by spending a few percent more than that, so, yes, about $7k/person/year.

[Alphaville]

It's however much I spend in a year. It's set by me trying to stay under limit of World GDP/world population/world ecological footprint which in 2020 comes to $6750/person/year. This is getting harder and harder and I'm currently failing by spending a few percent more than that, so, yes, about $7k/person/year.

ok, but if our monetary system does not account for externalities, any amount is more or less perpendicular to carbon emissions.

e.g. i used to live on $7k/year in a rural home made of cheap industrial materials, surrounded by cows, driving a v8 truck to get anywhere, burning wood and coal for heating in a highly inefficient manner. and so did neighbors, who maybe spent more but contributed to emissions and deforestation willy nilly based on cheap but smoky lifestyle which included such civic amenities as open fire garbage burning and hazardous material dumping on the ground.

i remember reading somewhere that attila the hun or maybe it was the golden horde (can’t recall this second) caused a global cooling when population reductions diminished wood-burning by what would be greatly impoverished peasants by today’s standards.

money measures value of supply and demand, not quantity of carbon.

[sky]

USD$7,000 is equivalent to 127 50 pound bags of lentils.

[Alphaville]

USD$7,000 is equivalent to 127 50 pound bags of lentils.

it’s also equivalent to nearly 12 metric tons of pvc resin

https://www.alibaba.com/showroom/pvc-re ... earchweb=Y&