Can a Carbon Footprint Label Make a Difference in Reducing Greenhouse Gases? Yes, If You Believe in the Power of the Marketplace

Reflecting growing concern about global climate change, as well as the growing prominence of market-oriented environmental performance ratings for products, carbon footprint labels probably soon will be coming to your store shelves. The World Resources Institute (WRI) and Carbon Trust are but two of the organizations developing voluntary carbon labels for products.

Another carbon footprint label quite possibly will be coming from the State of California in the form of Assembly Bill 19, the Carbon Labeling Act of 2009, which passed the State Assembly on June 2 with no real concerted opposition and currently awaits Senate action. AB 19 was authored by Assemblymember Ira Ruskin (D-Redwood City) and is promoted by the group Carbon Label California (www.carbonlabelca.org), which primarily has received funding from Silicon Valley philanthropist Noel Perry.

The purpose of AB 19?  Carbon Label California and other supporters of the legislation hope that a prominent label bearing the imprimatur of the State of California and explaining that product's carbon footprint will be meaningful and credible enough to consumers to help sway their purchase decisions toward a preference for low-carbon products. Further, much as it has done with other recent global warming legislation and policy, this bill presents another opportunity for the Golden State to prod the rest of the U.S. to reduce greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions. A product's carbon footprint is meant to denote the amount of GHGs, converted into pounds of carbon dioxide equivalent, that were emitted in order for this product to be produced and shipped for sale at your store.

For AB 19 to be both an environmental and marketplace success, enough corporations will have to find it in their self-interest to go to the trouble and expense of determining, then reducing, and finally publicizing their product's carbon emissions. In this manner, they meet evolving consumer expectations, strengthen their environmental credentials and their brand, and gain competitive advantage. At the same time, sufficiently growing numbers of consumers will need to presumably change their purchasing behavior to reward those companies that have lowered their GHG emissions and punish those that haven't.

Success will depend in part on effective branding, marketing, advertising, and merchandising by participating corporations. But success also very much hinges on widespread consumer acceptance of a yet-to-be determined carbon measurement protocol and rating system.

If AB 19 becomes law, the choice of which measurement protocol to use -- there are both lenient and stringent approaches -- belongs to the California Air Resources Board (CARB). Presumably, consumers would attach more value to a more stringent carbon footprint protocol. On the other hand, the tougher the requirements the more expensive the whole process for businesses, thus serving as a barrier to market entry and limiting overall marketplace impact. Many businesses and other supporters are likely to prefer an easier approach for measuring their GHG emissions.

Tougher emissions measurement protocols utilize a life cycle analysis (LCA) approach, which generally captures both direct and indirect carbon emissions throughout the product's supply chain. This can include: use of raw materials and their transportation; manufacturing; distribution; energy use; and, with the most comprehensive GHG measuring approach ("Scope 3"), vendor performance. Even with differences in difficulty among different LCA approaches, LCA nonetheless is a fuller and more realistic accounting of a product's carbon performance than non-LCA approaches. The latter methods are easier, as they measure fewer impacts, but they would still end up as numbers on a label.

So, given different approaches and assumptions in measuring greenhouse gases, how does a concerned but somewhat bewildered and harried shopper readily understand what the numbers on a carbon label are supposed to really mean?  How does one compare the carbon footprint for one product to another if both display certification labels from credible third-party organizations?

Most carbon and sustainability experts probably share these concerns. One, Nancy Hirshberg, vice president of Stonyfield Farm, was quoted in the New York Times that measuring a carbon footprint is a "fabulous tool" for identifying an organization's emission reduction opportunities. But she also said that, given the variables in determining a footprint, assigning a single number to a package was "misleading at best."

This methodological quandary does potentially confuse consumers. At the same time, Matt Newman, co-founder of Carbon Label California, points out at least two key benefits of a carbon footprint product label:

First, if provided by a credible third party certifier, and assuming no one commits market suicide by advertising a product with high emissions, a carbon footprint label does distinguish products that reduced their greenhouse gases compared to times past, their competition, or both. Other products on the shelf making either an unsubstantiated or vague claim -- ("Our internal investigation discovered we're green, we can all feel good") -- or no claim whatsoever fare poorly in comparison. In the case of AB 19, the third-party certifier would be CARB, which consumers should find reassuring and possibly even compelling.

Second, a carbon footprint label highlights the inherent environmental advantage of buying locally produced products. It's easy to understand that fruit, vegetables and flowers produced at farms within two hours' drive of the Bay Area, compared to like products produced in Latin America and shipped here via airplanes, cause far fewer greenhouse gases by the time you're buying them at your local grocery or flower store.

Stay tuned for more information at Climate Change Update regarding AB 19, and regarding the realm of voluntary environmental and sustainability standards and certification.

National Academy of Sciences Sounds Alarm Bells with New Projections of Climate Change Impacts

At present, atmospheric carbon dioxide levels are roughly 390 parts per million (ppm). Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences (NAS), as reported earlier this year in the Los Angeles Times, stated that even if the nations of the world could bring carbon dioxide levels back to those of the pre-industrial era -- a fantasy miracle we aren't going to see -- it would still take 1,000 years or longer for the climate changes already triggered to be reversed. According to the NAS, this is primarily due to the long-term impact of carbon dioxide on oceans. The NAS further reported that in the nearer future the world will experience greater melting of the polar ice caps than previously estimated and droughts in some regions, including southwestern U.S., comparable to the 1930s U.S. Dustbowl.

Population Growth Helping Drive Surge in Greenhouse Gas Emissions

Today’s global population is 6.5 billion.  It took the entirety of human history until 1830 to reach the first one billion people in population, but at present it's taking us a mere 12 or 13 years to add each new billion. Our annual growth is 80 million people.  This explosive growth in the sheer numbers of people consuming resources, energy, and water, producing waste, and contributing to greenhouse gas emissions is without historical precedent and significantly impacts Earth's carrying capacity.

Some Hits, Some Misses, as Friedman Discusses Climate Change and Energy

This is a summary and review of the keynote address delivered by author and columnist Thomas Friedman at the Bay Area Air Quality Management District’s (BAAQMD) May 4 Climate Action Leadership Summit.

Friedman’s presentation and discussion, based upon his recent book, ‘Hot, Flat, and Crowded,’ was in parts an insightful tutorial on global energy issues, an accurate and thus ominous review of climate change-related developments and challenges, and a self-indulgent exercise in name-dropping (repeating for the audience that he was “a close friend” of Al Gore, as one example).

He also devoted part of his presentation to a snappy slogan -- “Change your leaders, not your light bulbs” – that he masqueraded as a strategic approach for curbing greenhouse gases. The first half of his slogan was Friedman committing the public speaker’s sin of not knowing his audience. The latter half brought to mind Dick Cheney’s widely panned remark several years ago that energy conservation was an admirable personal ethic but not a legitimate component of an energy policy.

Summary of Friedman’s key points and premises:

• The world is getting hot, flat, and crowded. Friedman is correct, of course. Regarding temperatures, this writer notes that despite 2008, when average surface temperature in the lower 48 states was 1.34 degrees Fahrenheit lower than in 2007, average global surface temperatures increased over the last 100 years by about 1.1 degrees. Regarding “flat,” Friedman explained that this is a metaphor for the growth in the ranks of the world’s middle class and thus, in global appetites for American lifestyles and consumer amenities. “There are too many Americans in the world today,” Friedman joked. And as for crowding, this writer notes that today’s global population is 6.5 billion and that while it took all of human history until 1830 to reach the first one billion people we are now adding 80 million people per year, or, another billion every 12 or 13 years.

• Five global energy mega trends today, with each contributing to serious global problems and challenges, are:
• First, energy and natural resource supply and demand and its impact on human freedoms, or what Friedman labeled “the first law of petropolitics.” Friedman examined four countries almost totally reliant on oil for their GDP -- Iran, Russia, Venezuela, and Nigeria – and discovered that when the price of oil went down, his “freedom index” regarding living conditions in those countries went up. When the price of oil went up, the freedom index went down.
• Second, petrodictatorships are flourishing.
• Third, human-induced climate change is occurring. Further, we won’t come remotely close to halting and reversing levels of greenhouse gas emissions if nations such as China and India and in South America and South Asia continue to power their growing economies with enormous amounts of relatively cheap fossil fuels, which of course is the U.S. model. The comparatively modest reductions in emissions currently being contemplated in the U.S. and Europe would be completely overwhelmed by the concurrent growth in emissions from the world’s underdeveloped nations if current trends continue.
• Fourth, some 1.6 billion people today are suffering from “energy poverty,” i.e., they have no access to electricity and thus are denied the economic and quality of life benefits that electricity provides. Living in already deprived conditions in underdeveloped countries, they likely will suffer disproportionately as climate and weather patterns change.
• And fifth, we are in the midst of a mass phase of biodiversity extinction so pronounced that we’re entering what Friedman and others call the “Age of Noah.” We are the first human generation like the biblical Noah, necessitating that we act strategically and aggressively to protect the last remaining pairs of many species of animals that are fast becoming extinct.

• The answer to each of these global problems is the same: widespread use of abundant, cheap, reliable clean energy. But curbing the world’s voracious appetite for fossil fuel, and switching it to clean energy such as wind, solar and biomass, requires nothing short of revolution. The good news, according to Friedman, is that revolution is coming. Namely, innovation involving the environment, clean energy, and green technology is soaring, creating an Energy Technology (ET) revolution that will permanently alter the world’s economies and industries. Friedman predicted that this will be the world’s “next great revolution” but also noted that getting there will be extremely difficult, as there will be winners and losers.

This writer notes that, policy and financial interventions aside, the “losers” in a switch to clean energy are politically powerful stakeholders that include: the coal industry overall, as well as coal-producing regions in the U.S.; most U.S. utilities; petroleum-exporting nations such as Russia, Iran, and Venezuela; and, manufacturers that rely heavily on oil in their production processes.

• The U.S. needs to position its economy and business enterprises at the forefront of this coming ET revolution or risk losing a generation’s worth of economic opportunities. If the U.S. can achieve ET leadership, says Friedman, we will garner economic security, environmental security, energy security, and national security. To have a chance to attain leadership of, and gain advantage from, the ET revolution, the U.S. must undergo three institutional changes: First, businesses must change their practices. Second, “green” has to become the norm, not the advertising novelty that it is today. And third, there must be a significant and lasting increase in the price of carbon-based fossil fuels.

• Price matters. Permanently assigning a significantly higher price to carbon-based fuels -- one that internalizes their current environmental externalities and reflects their true environmental and societal costs – is a necessary step in weaning societies off fossil fuel. By first taking this step, “forces will be set in motion” unleashing investments in renewable energy, alternative fuels, and clean technology. These innovations will realize their tremendous market potential and the world’s economic and energy landscape will change forever. Without this price signal for coal and oil, the ET revolution will be minimized and the unprecedented growth in global GHG emissions will continue.

• We haven’t yet taken the serious steps in the U.S. that would impel the ET revolution. Instead, “we’re having a green party,” which Friedman gleefully mocked as consisting partly of corporate “green” advertising pitches and the seeming over-abundance of “how to save the environment” books.

Generally speaking, I mostly agree with Friedman’s point but his examples were rather poor. Friedman is correct that a great many corporations are exaggerating their supposed environmental accomplishments, and very publicly so. Consumers are being flooded with green advertising, some of which is completely true and meaningful, some of which is not. Just the other night I watched a TV commercial by a company advertising itself as “the Greenest” junk removal service – meaning what? – and we’re all being subjected to Chevron’s irritating and disingenuous advertising campaign. We could go on and on with “greenwashing” transgressions that include exaggerations, intellectual dishonesty, portraying modest actions as major, and touting environmental certifications that in some cases rest on flimsy requirements. But this isn’t universally true of corporations, hundreds of which voluntarily are going to the trouble and expense of making meaningful changes and meeting what are sometimes tough environmental performance standards.

Regarding the books, was Friedman suggesting that a seemingly excessive number of books on individual empowerment was some sort of denial of the big picture? Good thing he wasn’t an opinion leader in the U.S. prior to the American Revolution. Was he implying that the environmental benefit of numerous individuals taking relatively modest steps was a waste of time? Illogically, Friedman’s answer to both questions seemed to be “yes,” as he made clear with the final main point in his presentation.

• “Change your leaders, not your light bulbs”

From a national perspective, the first half of this message, “Change your leaders,” was obvious. In order for Americans to fundamentally shift our economy into one based on clean energy, we can’t miss the fact that only elected officials and others whom they appoint to agencies can make laws, change laws, and craft and implement regulations. Further, members of Congress to date have been a dismal failure on the daunting challenges of energy use and climate change. “It all comes down to leadership,” Friedman reminded us, and this writer’s own reminder is that historically this has meant a lack of leadership and currently this means an opening awaiting leadership.

But this message for this audience was misdirected. Many of those seated around me were policy or political leaders who recently had played substantial roles in what are enormous accomplishments on the climate change issue, namely AB 32, SB 375, and California’s toughened automobile fuel efficiency standards. As opposed to most elsewhere in our nation, Bay Area residents indeed have elected the right political leaders for effective action on energy, the environment, and climate change.

The latter half of his policy prescription, “Change…not your light bulbs,” was a puzzler. Friedman, a smart and educated man, couldn’t be more misguided in his disdain for the collective positive environmental impact of numerous individual actions. It’s a fact that enormous quantities of carbon dioxide equivalent have been avoided thanks to numerous individuals each taking some of the same mundane steps, such as recycling, increasing building insulation, telecommuting, purchasing energy efficient appliances, conserving water, using video conferencing in lieu of airline travel, and more. Friedman also was ignoring the power of the consumer-driven marketplace, in which increasing numbers of environmentally aware consumers are driving real changes in corporate behavior.

• Even given the weight of many of Friedman’s observations in his prepared presentation, his most concerning statement occurred during the Q&A session. A pesky questioner in the audience extracted from Friedman the reluctant admission that we are “probably too late” in the fight against human-induced global warming.

What “too late” truly means is best explained by expert scientists. To cite only one alarming example, recently published Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences (NAS) reported that even if reality were turned on its head and the nations of the world could bring carbon dioxide levels back to those of the pre-industrial era (currently we are at roughly 365 parts per million), it would still take 1,000 years or longer for the climate changes already triggered to be reversed. This was mostly due to the long-term impact of carbon dioxide on oceans. What the world will experience in the meantime, according to the NAS, will include greater melting of the polar icecaps than previously estimated and droughts in some regions comparable to the 1930s U.S. Dustbowl. We’ll end this edition of Climate Change Update on that sobering note.