6 ms·

What is their basis for the "Carbon Removed" stat?

by aquova 3y ago

olivier_martel 3y ago
Hilarious, should be carbon added by all this unnecessary consumption made easy by them.
- deleted 3y ago
  [deleted]
- toomuchtodo 3y ago
  Define necessary consumption. You cannot, because everyone's wants, needs, and desires are different. People will consume. If they do, behaviorally nudge them in ways to offset the harm (verified carbon offsets; not junk ones of course). Similarly to how certain cohorts loudly complain that EVs are not a component of a climate change mitigation plan. Almost 90M cars a year are sold globally; no one cares if they don't think they're the answer, they're going to get sold, so make sure the units that move are EVs. TLDR Provide solutions not opinions, opinions are like startup ideas without executive behind them: worthless. Direct air capture is the gold standard for carbon offsets. It is expensive, hopefully it will get cheaper, but we must start somewhere until the entire supply chain electrifies.
  - rTX5CMRXIfFG 3y ago
    Well you dismissed the idea of defining it before the commenter had a chance, so are you really making an honest argument here? If a policymaker wanted to ban “unnecessary consumption” they would come up with a list of what that is and whether your purchase would be banned or not would depend on whether you’re buying something from that list, which they can also incrementally grow over time.
    - toomuchtodo 3y ago
      I encourage someone to try it to speed run their political career to provide us the natural experiment we can observe. Constituents will accept taxes and other disincentives (see alcohol), they will not tolerate some political rep telling them what is unnecessary consumption and banning their desired products (broadly speaking, there are always exceptions and nuance). Walk the pavement like you would for a day running for office, ask your potential voters if they would like this policy. I’ve canvassed multiple times for US political reps, so I have an idea what this looks like. A small amount of fiat to offset harm is far more palatable. Look at this dashboard spin. Don’t yell at humanity, provide it better options.
      - rTX5CMRXIfFG 3y ago
        The politician’s career is irrelevant. We’re just talking about whether it is possible to define and you’ve been given a rational response suggesting it might be. Heck, it might be possible to ask AI to generate a list of items or criteria.
      - Symbiote 3y ago
        Many EU governments and the UK have defined lists of untaxed goods, mostly staple foods. The UK: > Food and drink for human consumption is usually zero-rated but some items are always standard-rated. These include catering, alcoholic drinks, confectionery, crisps and savoury snacks, hot food, sports drinks, hot takeaways, ice cream, soft drinks and mineral water. https://www.gov.uk/guidance/rates-of-vat-on-different-goods-and-services https://www.gov.uk/guidance/rates-of-vat-on-different-goods-...
      - fijiaarone 3y ago
        If you had two chickens, should you give you neighbor one?
    - judge2020 3y ago
      Can you define it then? Are Kitchen appliances unnecessary spending? What about designer clothes? VR Headsets? Video Game Consoles?
      - rTX5CMRXIfFG 3y ago
        Sure. You can start by making unnecessary consumption mean “net pollutant” products where the cost of producing them and the waste they create exceed the value that customers pay for or gain from the product, so easy suspects are the types of inventory which are always left over and unsold even during huge sales and promo periods.
  - hombre_fatal 3y ago
    They are just pointing out how funny it is to have any sort of environmental savings metric for a sales event known for impulse FOMO purchases.
    - toomuchtodo 3y ago
      But that’s the entire point. It isn’t funny, it is legitimate effort to offset the harm caused by consumer demand that won’t go away. My problem is that it is flippant, ignores the nuance, and is borderline ignorant. It has no place here, whereas the math around the topic does. Curiosity and discovery over shitposting.
      - hombre_fatal 3y ago
        I agree, but there's another side of the coin that's perhaps best demonstrated by "Climate-friendly" burger patties. We'll do anything to roleplay that we care instead of the hard things. https://www.vox.com/future-perfect/2023/9/8/23863100/tyson-climate-friendly-beef-burger-usda https://www.vox.com/future-perfect/2023/9/8/23863100/tyson-c... That said, I don't think responsibility falls on Shopify here. But I did find myself nodding along with them as I find myself scrolling Amazon for "deals" on things I don't even want!
      - lm28469 3y ago
        > consumer demand that won’t go away We created it, it didn't exist even 100 years ago... let's not act like this is some sort of universal law we have to abide to
  - wenebego 3y ago
    Id define it as people's needs and not their wants and desires
- kevin_thibedeau 3y ago
  The site needs to be hosted without TLS at the very least.
- nosefurhairdo 3y ago
  Blaming a reduction in transaction costs for increased consumption is seriously missing the mark. I don't know if there's data for this, but I can imagine that by improving the online shopping experience Shopify could have reduced the amount of unnecessary physical shopping trips thereby indirectly reducing carbon emissions. This analysis out of MIT would support that theory: https://ctl.mit.edu/pub/thesis/environmental-analysis-us-online-shopping https://ctl.mit.edu/pub/thesis/environmental-analysis-us-onl... Fortunately, you are not the dictator of "necessary" consumption.
  - abdullahkhalids 3y ago
    Looking at Fig 2 in the Executive Summary pdf, most of the CO2e emissions for physical shopping is from customer transportation to store - between 50-80% for the various scenarios they considered. For online shopping about 50% of the emissions are from packaging. The main lessons I see are - If you drive, then switching to online will reduce emissions by about 30%. - If you don't drive, and instead bus or walk to shopping stores, then your emissions will be about 10-20% of the car-drivers or online shoppers.
toomuchtodo 3y ago
https://www.shopify.com/climate/bfcm https://www.shopify.com/climate/bfcm (From the link on the dashboard when you click that stat) > All orders made through our platform over the Black Friday Cyber Monday shopping weekend will ship carbon neutral. > Here's how it works: A rigorous formula built by Shopify data scientists calculates the estimated carbon emissions for each Black Friday Cyber Monday shipment. We then team up with Shopify Sustainability Fund partners to remove CO2 emissions equal to the BFCM shipping footprint. > The result? You can ensure carbon-neutral shipping on all of your BFCM orders.
- tallanvor 3y ago
  Which is BS, of course. There's no way to really measure this.
  - toomuchtodo 3y ago
    Would you mind sharing your credentials and domain expertise on the topic?
  - tacker2000 3y ago
    Well you can somewhat calculate the CO2 emitted by a parcel shipped from X to Y. Of course it will depend on loads of factors, like did they use a plane, a truck, a barge with one guy sitting inside rowing gently down the stream, etc… so im not sure how exact their numbers will be. Basically it means nothing anyway, but companies love to tout how “green” they are, dont they?
    - theduder99 3y ago
      I get that its virtue signaling but who is the intended audience who would actually believe it and appreciate it?
      - tacker2000 3y ago
        [dead]
lebean 3y ago
It's a cool thing to add to your company website.
tacker2000 3y ago
They basically pay someone else to “remove carbon” and can the throw this magic number in there. So yea…
- fijiaarone 3y ago
  Why pay someone else when you have your own “carbon removal” program and just pocket the profits? Of course, you’ll still need to purchase the Certified Genuine Carbon Credit Approved Organic Green Sticker (R) (TM) (501c3) (NGO) (LLC) to prove you are worthy to sequester other people’s consumption sins.
gravitronic 3y ago
I see lots of criticism in this thread and elsewhere about that carbon removed stat. I would love to see more productive criticism, where people make suggestions on how they could do it better, instead of just criticizing a company of this scale at least doing something. Or examples of companies that are doing a better job of it. Personally I'd prefer if they didn't call it carbon removed unless they were actually doubling the shipping carbon removal, and they should call it offsets unless it's all coming from some of their direct capture partners (which iirc Shopify does buy from).
- xkekjrktllss 3y ago
  >I would love to see more productive criticism, where people make suggestions on how they could do it better Not do it at all, because it's obviously bullshit. Even in the best of cases, it's a speculative con. The only purpose is to make people feel good about consuming more, which they do to distract from their miserable and alienated existence in late-capitalist society.
  - nozzlegear 3y ago
    > which they do to distract from their miserable and alienated existence in late-capitalist society. Is that so?

What is their basis for the "Carbon Removed" stat?

by aquova 3y ago

What is their basis for the "Carbon Removed" stat?

olivier_martel 3y ago

Hilarious, should be carbon added by all this unnecessary consumption made easy by them.

deleted 3y ago
[deleted]
toomuchtodo 3y ago
Define necessary consumption. You cannot, because everyone's wants, needs, and desires are different. People will consume. If they do, behaviorally nudge them in ways to offset the harm (verified carbon offsets; not junk ones of course). Similarly to how certain cohorts loudly complain that EVs are not a component of a climate change mitigation plan. Almost 90M cars a year are sold globally; no one cares if they don't think they're the answer, they're going to get sold, so make sure the units that move are EVs. TLDR Provide solutions not opinions, opinions are like startup ideas without executive behind them: worthless. Direct air capture is the gold standard for carbon offsets. It is expensive, hopefully it will get cheaper, but we must start somewhere until the entire supply chain electrifies.
- rTX5CMRXIfFG 3y ago
  Well you dismissed the idea of defining it before the commenter had a chance, so are you really making an honest argument here? If a policymaker wanted to ban “unnecessary consumption” they would come up with a list of what that is and whether your purchase would be banned or not would depend on whether you’re buying something from that list, which they can also incrementally grow over time.
  - toomuchtodo 3y ago
    I encourage someone to try it to speed run their political career to provide us the natural experiment we can observe. Constituents will accept taxes and other disincentives (see alcohol), they will not tolerate some political rep telling them what is unnecessary consumption and banning their desired products (broadly speaking, there are always exceptions and nuance). Walk the pavement like you would for a day running for office, ask your potential voters if they would like this policy. I’ve canvassed multiple times for US political reps, so I have an idea what this looks like. A small amount of fiat to offset harm is far more palatable. Look at this dashboard spin. Don’t yell at humanity, provide it better options.
    - rTX5CMRXIfFG 3y ago
      The politician’s career is irrelevant. We’re just talking about whether it is possible to define and you’ve been given a rational response suggesting it might be. Heck, it might be possible to ask AI to generate a list of items or criteria.
    - Symbiote 3y ago
      Many EU governments and the UK have defined lists of untaxed goods, mostly staple foods. The UK: > Food and drink for human consumption is usually zero-rated but some items are always standard-rated. These include catering, alcoholic drinks, confectionery, crisps and savoury snacks, hot food, sports drinks, hot takeaways, ice cream, soft drinks and mineral water. https://www.gov.uk/guidance/rates-of-vat-on-different-goods-and-services https://www.gov.uk/guidance/rates-of-vat-on-different-goods-...
    - fijiaarone 3y ago
      If you had two chickens, should you give you neighbor one?
  - judge2020 3y ago
    Can you define it then? Are Kitchen appliances unnecessary spending? What about designer clothes? VR Headsets? Video Game Consoles?
    - rTX5CMRXIfFG 3y ago
      Sure. You can start by making unnecessary consumption mean “net pollutant” products where the cost of producing them and the waste they create exceed the value that customers pay for or gain from the product, so easy suspects are the types of inventory which are always left over and unsold even during huge sales and promo periods.
- hombre_fatal 3y ago
  They are just pointing out how funny it is to have any sort of environmental savings metric for a sales event known for impulse FOMO purchases.
  - toomuchtodo 3y ago
    But that’s the entire point. It isn’t funny, it is legitimate effort to offset the harm caused by consumer demand that won’t go away. My problem is that it is flippant, ignores the nuance, and is borderline ignorant. It has no place here, whereas the math around the topic does. Curiosity and discovery over shitposting.
    - hombre_fatal 3y ago
      I agree, but there's another side of the coin that's perhaps best demonstrated by "Climate-friendly" burger patties. We'll do anything to roleplay that we care instead of the hard things. https://www.vox.com/future-perfect/2023/9/8/23863100/tyson-climate-friendly-beef-burger-usda https://www.vox.com/future-perfect/2023/9/8/23863100/tyson-c... That said, I don't think responsibility falls on Shopify here. But I did find myself nodding along with them as I find myself scrolling Amazon for "deals" on things I don't even want!
    - lm28469 3y ago
      > consumer demand that won’t go away We created it, it didn't exist even 100 years ago... let's not act like this is some sort of universal law we have to abide to
- wenebego 3y ago
  Id define it as people's needs and not their wants and desires
kevin_thibedeau 3y ago
The site needs to be hosted without TLS at the very least.
nosefurhairdo 3y ago
Blaming a reduction in transaction costs for increased consumption is seriously missing the mark. I don't know if there's data for this, but I can imagine that by improving the online shopping experience Shopify could have reduced the amount of unnecessary physical shopping trips thereby indirectly reducing carbon emissions. This analysis out of MIT would support that theory: https://ctl.mit.edu/pub/thesis/environmental-analysis-us-online-shopping https://ctl.mit.edu/pub/thesis/environmental-analysis-us-onl... Fortunately, you are not the dictator of "necessary" consumption.
- abdullahkhalids 3y ago
  Looking at Fig 2 in the Executive Summary pdf, most of the CO2e emissions for physical shopping is from customer transportation to store - between 50-80% for the various scenarios they considered. For online shopping about 50% of the emissions are from packaging. The main lessons I see are - If you drive, then switching to online will reduce emissions by about 30%. - If you don't drive, and instead bus or walk to shopping stores, then your emissions will be about 10-20% of the car-drivers or online shoppers.

toomuchtodo 3y ago

https://www.shopify.com/climate/bfcm https://www.shopify.com/climate/bfcm (From the link on the dashboard when you click that stat) > All orders made through our platform over the Black Friday Cyber Monday shopping weekend will ship carbon neutral. > Here's how it works: A rigorous formula built by Shopify data scientists calculates the estimated carbon emissions for each Black Friday Cyber Monday shipment. We then team up with Shopify Sustainability Fund partners to remove CO2 emissions equal to the BFCM shipping footprint. > The result? You can ensure carbon-neutral shipping on all of your BFCM orders.

tallanvor 3y ago
Which is BS, of course. There's no way to really measure this.
- toomuchtodo 3y ago
  Would you mind sharing your credentials and domain expertise on the topic?
- tacker2000 3y ago
  Well you can somewhat calculate the CO2 emitted by a parcel shipped from X to Y. Of course it will depend on loads of factors, like did they use a plane, a truck, a barge with one guy sitting inside rowing gently down the stream, etc… so im not sure how exact their numbers will be. Basically it means nothing anyway, but companies love to tout how “green” they are, dont they?
  - theduder99 3y ago
    I get that its virtue signaling but who is the intended audience who would actually believe it and appreciate it?
    - tacker2000 3y ago
      [dead]

lebean 3y ago

It's a cool thing to add to your company website.

tacker2000 3y ago

They basically pay someone else to “remove carbon” and can the throw this magic number in there. So yea…

fijiaarone 3y ago
Why pay someone else when you have your own “carbon removal” program and just pocket the profits? Of course, you’ll still need to purchase the Certified Genuine Carbon Credit Approved Organic Green Sticker (R) (TM) (501c3) (NGO) (LLC) to prove you are worthy to sequester other people’s consumption sins.

gravitronic 3y ago

I see lots of criticism in this thread and elsewhere about that carbon removed stat. I would love to see more productive criticism, where people make suggestions on how they could do it better, instead of just criticizing a company of this scale at least doing something. Or examples of companies that are doing a better job of it. Personally I'd prefer if they didn't call it carbon removed unless they were actually doubling the shipping carbon removal, and they should call it offsets unless it's all coming from some of their direct capture partners (which iirc Shopify does buy from).

xkekjrktllss 3y ago
>I would love to see more productive criticism, where people make suggestions on how they could do it better Not do it at all, because it's obviously bullshit. Even in the best of cases, it's a speculative con. The only purpose is to make people feel good about consuming more, which they do to distract from their miserable and alienated existence in late-capitalist society.
- nozzlegear 3y ago
  > which they do to distract from their miserable and alienated existence in late-capitalist society. Is that so?