5 ms·

I’ve been wanting something like this! A browser plugin that would add a Co2 tax to products. The aim being to nudge shoppers to realize the hidden costs of che

I’ve been wanting something like this! A browser plugin that would add a Co2 tax to products. The aim being to nudge shoppers to realize the hidden costs of cheap goods that are shipped at great distances. Buy local. Buy for life.

thepangolino 7y ago
This is something that always puzzled me. If something is cheaper, doesn’t it mean it took less resources to make it and therefore is the greener option?
- Lutger 7y ago
  No, we're not paying the cost on the impact on the climate of our products. We're basically borrowing / stealing this from the future, the poor and the commons.
- whatshisface 7y ago
  Software consultants are one counterexample, because they are very expensive but also environmentally friendly. Human labor has the biggest difference between price and resource consumption that I can think of.
  - ars 7y ago
    > Human labor is very environmentally friendly No it is not. For example a meat eating human produces more CO2 per mile than a regular car. (Although most people could use the exercise so don't use that info in isolation.)
    - jdnenej 7y ago
      That only matters if you plan to kill people who aren't working.
      - ars 7y ago
        No, I don't mean baseline, I mean extra CO2 emitted by a human riding a bicycle. Again, many people need exercise so this might just replace that. But if you exert extra, then you need extra food. Food costs CO2, and humans are not very efficient.
  - jcrben 7y ago
    Except that highly-paid people have a right to resources, which they often invoke by buying lots of stuff.
- ars 7y ago
  > If something is cheaper, doesn’t it mean it took less resources to make it and therefore is the greener option? Yes, that is mostly correct, but only if you are comparing products made in the same country.
- stevenwoo 7y ago
  Sorry if you already know this, but basic capitalism as practiced does not capture the full cost of things, if one believes that pollution or climate change or exhausting shared natural resources (something like government giving water away for free to corporate entities to resell in bottles) are things that should be accounted for in cost https://www.imf.org/external/pubs/ft/fandd/basics/external.htm https://www.imf.org/external/pubs/ft/fandd/basics/external.h...
- Freestyler_3 7y ago
  Making something with less impact takes more effort. Filters/knowledge you name it, does not come cheap. It is not the amount of resources it is the process of turning resource into product. A cotton sweater is cheap. But if you want to make cotton sweater in a greener process, then you need water cleaning systems, maybe different paint (which is also more expensive).
- layoric 7y ago
  No, as the cost of actions/methods/waste/materials of production aren’t always captured, the driving down of costs through competition actually encourages the discovery of externalities (ways to externalise the cost/impact onto others/environment/public good), “efficiencies” aren’t always net wins but a movement of negative impacts away from the production of a good/service.
whatshisface 7y ago
A real CO2 tax would handle the calculation difficulties automatically, by allowing the market to propagate the cost of carbon through the supply network. A browser plugin would have to know everything about the supply chain in order to compute that number itself.
- benhurmarcel 7y ago
  A real CO2 tax would need to compute that number for every imported good or service.
  - lightgreen 7y ago
    Yes, a country should tax imported goods based on exporter co2 emissions.
ars 7y ago
> Buy local. That would be counter productive. Buy local would increase your CO2 emissions. Local might have other benefits, but Co2 is not one of them. Shipping uses FAR less Co2 than you might imagine.
fillskills 7y ago
Whoever builds a simple user experience for something so complicated will hopefully end up being the next google. There is a sore need for 'woke' consumers all over the world for the true future cost of their purchases. At this point money is no longer the sole facet of cost.

thepangolino 7y ago

This is something that always puzzled me. If something is cheaper, doesn’t it mean it took less resources to make it and therefore is the greener option?

Lutger 7y ago
No, we're not paying the cost on the impact on the climate of our products. We're basically borrowing / stealing this from the future, the poor and the commons.
whatshisface 7y ago
Software consultants are one counterexample, because they are very expensive but also environmentally friendly. Human labor has the biggest difference between price and resource consumption that I can think of.
- ars 7y ago
  > Human labor is very environmentally friendly No it is not. For example a meat eating human produces more CO2 per mile than a regular car. (Although most people could use the exercise so don't use that info in isolation.)
  - jdnenej 7y ago
    That only matters if you plan to kill people who aren't working.
    - ars 7y ago
      No, I don't mean baseline, I mean extra CO2 emitted by a human riding a bicycle. Again, many people need exercise so this might just replace that. But if you exert extra, then you need extra food. Food costs CO2, and humans are not very efficient.
- jcrben 7y ago
  Except that highly-paid people have a right to resources, which they often invoke by buying lots of stuff.
ars 7y ago
> If something is cheaper, doesn’t it mean it took less resources to make it and therefore is the greener option? Yes, that is mostly correct, but only if you are comparing products made in the same country.
stevenwoo 7y ago
Sorry if you already know this, but basic capitalism as practiced does not capture the full cost of things, if one believes that pollution or climate change or exhausting shared natural resources (something like government giving water away for free to corporate entities to resell in bottles) are things that should be accounted for in cost https://www.imf.org/external/pubs/ft/fandd/basics/external.htm https://www.imf.org/external/pubs/ft/fandd/basics/external.h...
Freestyler_3 7y ago
Making something with less impact takes more effort. Filters/knowledge you name it, does not come cheap. It is not the amount of resources it is the process of turning resource into product. A cotton sweater is cheap. But if you want to make cotton sweater in a greener process, then you need water cleaning systems, maybe different paint (which is also more expensive).
layoric 7y ago
No, as the cost of actions/methods/waste/materials of production aren’t always captured, the driving down of costs through competition actually encourages the discovery of externalities (ways to externalise the cost/impact onto others/environment/public good), “efficiencies” aren’t always net wins but a movement of negative impacts away from the production of a good/service.

whatshisface 7y ago

A real CO2 tax would handle the calculation difficulties automatically, by allowing the market to propagate the cost of carbon through the supply network. A browser plugin would have to know everything about the supply chain in order to compute that number itself.

benhurmarcel 7y ago
A real CO2 tax would need to compute that number for every imported good or service.
- lightgreen 7y ago
  Yes, a country should tax imported goods based on exporter co2 emissions.

ars 7y ago

> Buy local. That would be counter productive. Buy local would increase your CO2 emissions. Local might have other benefits, but Co2 is not one of them. Shipping uses FAR less Co2 than you might imagine.

fillskills 7y ago

Whoever builds a simple user experience for something so complicated will hopefully end up being the next google. There is a sore need for 'woke' consumers all over the world for the true future cost of their purchases. At this point money is no longer the sole facet of cost.