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?