4 ms·

I'm starting to see a trend for all these carbon footprint and environmental impact tabs integrated into apps and even bank interfaces. I never use them because

I'm starting to see a trend for all these carbon footprint and environmental impact tabs integrated into apps and even bank interfaces. I never use them because it is obviously PR stuff that will never contain any useful, actionable advice. On top of that, won't all of this logging and extra computation actually increase carbon emissions?

fbrncci 4y ago
Just wait until banks stop giving carbon offenders credit, interest or loans when monthly personal carbon footprint limits are exceeded. You'll see the usefulness then /s.
- gruez 4y ago
  You're writing as if this is a bad thing, but this sound like something that climate activists would actually support? It's basically ESG investing, but in reverse. Rather than trying to affect change by boycotting companies with a bad climate track record, you're trying to affect change by boycotting people with a climate track record.
enviclash 4y ago
Well, when there are professionals applying science to create labels like "green, yellow or red", this is good natural science creating understable information for behavioural nudges... much more than PR
lozenge 4y ago
It's a convenient little responsibility two-step - us companies aren't responsible, it's you guys for choosing high carbon options! So rather than reducing the carbon emissions of all options as much as possible, they just call it out and claim it's on us. Basically, the same as making packaging which mixes metal, plastic and paper, and then telling you there's two places in your city you can drop it off for "recycling", so they've done their bit.
- gruez 4y ago
  > It's a convenient little responsibility two-step - us companies aren't responsible, it's you guys for choosing high carbon options! So rather than reducing the carbon emissions of all options as much as possible, they just call it out and claim it's on us. This argument works in reverse as well: >Us consumers aren't responsible, it's you corporations for choosing high carbon options! So rather than making lifestyle changes to reduce carbon emissions (not driving a SUV, not eating meat, not living in a McMansion in suburbia), we just call it out and claim it's on them.
actually_a_dog 4y ago
You're absolutely right, when it comes to individuals. The whole concept of an individual "carbon footprint" is literally just corporate propaganda to deflect responsibility away from the actual offenders, who are primarily energy companies. The top 20 carbon-emitting corporations are responsible for ~35% of all emissions. [0] Individuals have very little control over most carbon emissions. Outside of choosing to have fewer children, and transportation-related activities, there really is very little an individual can do here. [1] --- [0]: https://www.theguardian.com/environment/2019/oct/09/revealed-20-firms-third-carbon-emissions https://www.theguardian.com/environment/2019/oct/09/revealed... [1]: https://iopscience.iop.org/article/10.1088/1748-9326/aa7541#erlaa7541s3 https://iopscience.iop.org/article/10.1088/1748-9326/aa7541#...
- maxerickson 4y ago
  Why not both? People choosing excessively large vehicles for aesthetics shouldn't get a pass because some giant company happens to produce the fuel it uses.
  - lozenge 4y ago
    How about car companies deciding to sell more oversized vehicles because they don't want to put in the engineering effort to meet fuel efficiency standards? As actually happened. Advertising shifted to SUVs. Blaming individuals may be interesting morally but it makes for terrible public policy. It doesn't produce anything actionable. Imagine trying to fix ozone depletion with a voluntary labelling scheme and "blaming" people who use CFCs.
    - maxerickson 4y ago
      Only marketers have agency. Marketers and the US government.
      - steeleyespan 4y ago
        Sarcastic, yet perhaps closer than you realize. People are very malleable to propaganda.
deleted 4y ago
[deleted]

fbrncci 4y ago

Just wait until banks stop giving carbon offenders credit, interest or loans when monthly personal carbon footprint limits are exceeded. You'll see the usefulness then /s.

gruez 4y ago
You're writing as if this is a bad thing, but this sound like something that climate activists would actually support? It's basically ESG investing, but in reverse. Rather than trying to affect change by boycotting companies with a bad climate track record, you're trying to affect change by boycotting people with a climate track record.

enviclash 4y ago

Well, when there are professionals applying science to create labels like "green, yellow or red", this is good natural science creating understable information for behavioural nudges... much more than PR

lozenge 4y ago

It's a convenient little responsibility two-step - us companies aren't responsible, it's you guys for choosing high carbon options! So rather than reducing the carbon emissions of all options as much as possible, they just call it out and claim it's on us. Basically, the same as making packaging which mixes metal, plastic and paper, and then telling you there's two places in your city you can drop it off for "recycling", so they've done their bit.

gruez 4y ago
> It's a convenient little responsibility two-step - us companies aren't responsible, it's you guys for choosing high carbon options! So rather than reducing the carbon emissions of all options as much as possible, they just call it out and claim it's on us. This argument works in reverse as well: >Us consumers aren't responsible, it's you corporations for choosing high carbon options! So rather than making lifestyle changes to reduce carbon emissions (not driving a SUV, not eating meat, not living in a McMansion in suburbia), we just call it out and claim it's on them.

actually_a_dog 4y ago

You're absolutely right, when it comes to individuals. The whole concept of an individual "carbon footprint" is literally just corporate propaganda to deflect responsibility away from the actual offenders, who are primarily energy companies. The top 20 carbon-emitting corporations are responsible for ~35% of all emissions. [0] Individuals have very little control over most carbon emissions. Outside of choosing to have fewer children, and transportation-related activities, there really is very little an individual can do here. [1] --- [0]: https://www.theguardian.com/environment/2019/oct/09/revealed-20-firms-third-carbon-emissions https://www.theguardian.com/environment/2019/oct/09/revealed... [1]: https://iopscience.iop.org/article/10.1088/1748-9326/aa7541#erlaa7541s3 https://iopscience.iop.org/article/10.1088/1748-9326/aa7541#...

maxerickson 4y ago
Why not both? People choosing excessively large vehicles for aesthetics shouldn't get a pass because some giant company happens to produce the fuel it uses.
- lozenge 4y ago
  How about car companies deciding to sell more oversized vehicles because they don't want to put in the engineering effort to meet fuel efficiency standards? As actually happened. Advertising shifted to SUVs. Blaming individuals may be interesting morally but it makes for terrible public policy. It doesn't produce anything actionable. Imagine trying to fix ozone depletion with a voluntary labelling scheme and "blaming" people who use CFCs.
  - maxerickson 4y ago
    Only marketers have agency. Marketers and the US government.
    - steeleyespan 4y ago
      Sarcastic, yet perhaps closer than you realize. People are very malleable to propaganda.

deleted 4y ago

[deleted]