Last fall, the British Government launched a program that would educate and encourage businesses to cut down their products' "carbon footprint" -- a term that describes the amount of carbon pollutants emitted during the process of creation and shipment of a product.
For example, the carbon footprint of a can of soup would include the carbon emitted from the gathering of the raw ingredients to the manufacturing of the can. As a result, in March, Walkers -- a major snack food brand in Europe -- began labeling their products with carbon footprints.
According to the BBC, a survey of 1,159 people showed that 66 percent wanted to know what the carbon footprint of their product was and 67 percent agreed that a carbon footprint label would affect their purchasing behaviors.
Proponents of the plan claim that not only will carbon footprint labeling enable shoppers to make better decisions, but their subsequent decisions will also force companies to develop more environmentally friendly ways of producing and transporting goods.
On face, this seems like a simple and obvious way that carbon emissions can be minimized. However, as always, this environmental fix is more complicated than it looks.
A key problem in establishing this system is that many questions remain unanswered. Primarily, the labeling needs clear criteria of how far back in the product's lifecycle should be measured.
For example, should the carbon emissions resulting from the processing of every single raw ingredient in a bag of potato chips be included (vegetable oil, potatoes, etc.)?
Another key question is the breadth of the measurements. Should the gasoline used by workers to get to work to process a product be included? These questions of breadth and depth need to be standardized before any legitimate carbon footprint labeling can take place.
Another big problem is whether or not the general public will really care. Although the aforementioned survey claims that the public would like to have this labeling, we can never be too sure.
Similar to the nutritional labeling in foods, only a few people (who are already diet conscious) will pay attention to the labeling. The few people who will pay attention to the carbon labeling are those who already care about the environment.
It is unclear whether this new system will have any significant impact on the majority of the population.
The carbon labeling system can do good if it is able to influence consumer behavior by convincing them to buy green products. Beyond that, governing bodies that create the labeling schemes can also ask companies to agree to cutting emissions in the production lines within a time period if they want to be able to label their product with its carbon footprint.
According to the BBC, such is the case with The Carbon Trust in the United Kingdom, which mandates that companies that use their label must reduce emissions within two years. This step, of course, can only be successful after the legitimacy and acceptability of the labeling is established.
I believe that carbon labeling is a very important step in minimizing climate change. However, the success of this system depends very much on cooperation and consensus. Clear standards need to be created to decide a common methodology for all "labelers" to follow.
The legitimacy of the system depends on whether there is an agreement on the breadth and depth of the measurements.
Ultimately, only when these factors are resolved will carbon footprint labeling have a significant impact on minimizing carbon output.
Reach the columnist at: uven.chong@asu.edu.
