3 ms·

While I think change has to come from both consumers and producers, this kind of gimmick (an interesting gimmick, but a gimmick nonetheless) puts too much of th

While I think change has to come from both consumers and producers, this kind of gimmick (an interesting gimmick, but a gimmick nonetheless) puts too much of the burden on consumers and feels like tinkering around the edges of the real issues. It feeds into a model where the emitters don't take direct responsibility for their emissions, where it's easier to calculate, and pass the costs on down through the supply chain, as other commenters have noted. It's rather like the successful campaign of companies to push the burden of disposable rubbish onto consumers instead of changing the system: https://blogs.scientificamerican.com/observations/more-recycling-wont-solve-plastic-pollution/ https://blogs.scientificamerican.com/observations/more-recyc...

barsonme 7y ago
Isn't this the same thing as the discussion behind counting the environmental impact at where it's produced versus where it's ordered?
Mirioron 7y ago
But without consumers these goods wouldn't be produced in the first place. Companies themselves rarely consume resources, people do. Regulating producers is easier, but ultimately all of it still depends on the consumers.
- dmbass 7y ago
  The sentiment is that goods should be produced sustainably instead of unsustainably or not at all. Obviously consumers gonna consume whatever is available to them (that's why they are called consumers).
  - Mirioron 7y ago
    But consumers are not consuming whatever is available to them. You don't create a product without knowing that somebody would want to buy it. Consumers do make choices. Perhaps some kind of labeling for how environmentally friendly a product and its packaging are? Kind of like calorie content labeling. Eg some estimate of X amount of carbon to produce, package, transport the goods based on country of origin, transport method, raw materials and packaging. If you try to force producers to take all the burden and blame (like many people are) then you'll just get lied to. People are generally unwilling to accept responsibility for these kinds of things without there being overwhelming evidence.

barsonme 7y ago

Isn't this the same thing as the discussion behind counting the environmental impact at where it's produced versus where it's ordered?

Mirioron 7y ago

But without consumers these goods wouldn't be produced in the first place. Companies themselves rarely consume resources, people do. Regulating producers is easier, but ultimately all of it still depends on the consumers.

dmbass 7y ago
The sentiment is that goods should be produced sustainably instead of unsustainably or not at all. Obviously consumers gonna consume whatever is available to them (that's why they are called consumers).
- Mirioron 7y ago
  But consumers are not consuming whatever is available to them. You don't create a product without knowing that somebody would want to buy it. Consumers do make choices. Perhaps some kind of labeling for how environmentally friendly a product and its packaging are? Kind of like calorie content labeling. Eg some estimate of X amount of carbon to produce, package, transport the goods based on country of origin, transport method, raw materials and packaging. If you try to force producers to take all the burden and blame (like many people are) then you'll just get lied to. People are generally unwilling to accept responsibility for these kinds of things without there being overwhelming evidence.