This study reminded me of one of the most ridiculous green marketing campaigns ever, “carbon free” Domino sugar.
My view is that the only consumers that care about a carbon footprint are the ones incapable of understanding what they are being sold.
Do consumers care about carbon emitted during the lifecycle of consumer goods?
INDERSCIENCE PUBLISHERS
How much do consumers care about the carbon footprint of the products they buy? Would they care more if the goods were labeled with emissions data? Does it matter at which stage in the lifecycle of a product the carbon is emitted? Research published in the International Journal of Environmental Policy and Decision Making offers a way to find out.
Christopher Groening of the College of Business Administration, at Kent State University, in Ohio and colleagues Jeffrey Inman of the University of Pittsburgh and William Ross of the University of Connecticut, have developed and tested a framework based on the consumer’s accountability for the carbon emitted. Study participants view a carbon footprint label akin to labels that have appeared on some existing products. The label displays the carbon dioxide emissions associated with their production, transportation, usage and disposal, thus giving an indication to the buyer the likely impact on climate change of buying a particular product.
In the first group of studies, the research team established that carbon emissions and a carbon emissions label would indeed play a role in consumer product decisions, although not as great a role as price. In a second set of studies, the team found that emissions associated with usage were most important to consumers followed by the transportation and disposal stages. The carbon footprint of the manufacturing process was considered less important to consumers than the other stages in the product’s lifecycle because it is more distal from the consumer’s control. That is, the participants felt they were less accountable for carbon emitted during manufacture as opposed to the usage stage. Consumers value recycling a product, but the researchers found that, overall, the consumers would prefer manufacturers to offset carbon emissions rather than having to address the problem directly themselves.
Consumers are increasingly concerned with climate change issues, government legislation is being put in place and already carbon labeling is appearing on some products. “We find that participants not only take the carbon label into account when making product decisions, but they want detailed information on the label,” the researchers explain. They suggest that companies should prepare for how carbon emissions labels might affect future consumer choice.
###
Groening, C., Inman, J.J. and Ross Jr., W.T. (2015) ‘The role of carbon emissions in consumer purchase decisions’, Int. J. Environmental Policy and Decision Making, Vol. 1, No. 4, pp.261-296.
Never forget the controlled burns of the fields that precede cutting the cane at harvest time.
Use beet sugar! No controlled burns of the fields prior to harvest.
Carbon can be removed from sugar by a process called oxidation. The result is a lot of hot air, Carbon Dioxide, and water vapor which are both so called greenhouse gases. The packaging material has a lot of carbon it and involves the use of fossil fuels in its manufacture. At markets where I shop, all the products that they offer for sale are trucked in via fossil fuel powered trucks. So none of the products at the markets where I shop are carbon free,
But there is no real evidence that CO2 has any effect on climate. In part, because CO2 has no significant effect on the natural lapse rate in the troposphere, there is reason to believe that the climate sensitivity of CO2 is really equal to 0.0. If one wants to worry about so called heat trapping gases then N2 is the one. More heat energy is held by N2 in the Earth’s atmosphere then all other gases combined. Unlike so called greenhouse gases, N2 does not have significant LWIR radiation bands. Remember that a good absorber is also a good radiator. The average temperature at the Earth’s surface is a function of the solar irradiance, the Earth;s albedo, the depth of the troposphere, the heat capacity of the atmosphere and the pressure gradient. A doubling of N2 would increase the depth of the troposphere by more than two thirds which would have a very significant warming effect. A doubling of CO2 would have no significant effect on the depth of the troposphere but would cause a slight decrease in the natural lapse rate which would result in slight cooling and not warming. It is all a matter of science. Those who believe otherwise must be anti science.
“My view is that the only consumers that care about a carbon footprint are the ones incapable of understanding what they are being sold.”
==============
“incapable” how ??
Do you mean uninformed, instead ?
There are traits that make one susceptible to bullcrap: interview original paper
1 – Response Bias – ie. Some people will believe anything.
2 – An ineffective anterior cingulate cortex.
3 – Less analytic.
4 – Less intelligent.
5 – Suffering ontological confusion.
So, yes, some folks seem incapable of telling bullcrap from the real deal.
There was a video running around facebook a couple of weeks ago of a tourist recording in someplace like Yellowstone and whispering hushed commentary on their good fortune to have captured on film a Unicorn! The actual animal in front of them was a bull wapiti elk whacking his antlers on a tree. People are quite capable of convincing one that they must be dumber than a box of rocks.
If they take the carbon out of sugar, would we not be left with the dangerous dihydrogen monoxide?
From:
http://www.dhmo.org/facts.html
“A similar study conducted by U.S. researchers Patrick K. McCluskey and Matthew Kulick also found that nearly 90 percent of the citizens participating in their study were willing to sign a petition to support an outright ban on the use of Dihydrogen Monoxide in the United States.”
sarc
Well I’m one consumer who doesn’t give a toss about the imagined ‘carbon footprint’ of anything I buy, but then, the veggies taking this survey never asked me. Maybe because I don’t live on campus or something?
What is a ‘carbon footprint’ anyway; is that what’s trailed by the sort of nugget who tries firewalking after a few too many pints?
What a bunch of crap. Let us see their sample group to evaluate the demographic in more detail. My bet is they represent less than 1% of the general population and are left of left or all from their locked up classroom. We taxpayers paid for this crap too I am sure.
“EXXON Carbon Free Diesel Fuel”
How cool!
I have to wonder how many research dollars have been put into producing “carbon-free” babies.
I am waiting for some maternity hospital to advertise that their patients give birth to carbon free babies. One problem, according to askabiologist.asu.edu/content/atoms-life the human body consists in part of approx. 18.6% Carbon. Oh the horror.
And when will the call go out to ‘punish’ a woman (or at least tax her) who extrudes one of those sacks full of carbon after 9 months of accumulating it?
Earth friendly products and things supporting a good cause are much more important to the millennial generation, they seem to be willing to pay a premium for products that somehow help the environment or the disadvantaged. You hear this theme discussed on the program “shark tank” sometimes, the shark investors acknowledge the huge marketing power of green products or products that are known to give some profits to charity when selling things to people under 30. Even if the benefit is miniscule or non-existent, its the appearance of buying or owning green products that is a status symbol.
One high school kid on Shark Tank was selling shampoo that was wrapped in biodegradable wrappers in one use sizes. His idea was you replace one plastic shampoo bottle with a box or bag filled with 50 wrappings of single use shampoo balls. Replace 1 bottle with a box and 50 wrappers? So you have a wrapper you have to discard in a trash can everytime you wash your hair. It seems like an absurd idea to me but the Sharks were all over the idea, and they mentioned the millennial generation as the target for the product.
Another pair of kids on that show had T-shirts with kid paintings on the front for $45, they looked like they should cost $10. But they gave $2 for each shirt sold to schools to buy back packs for kids. They were selling in Bloomingdale’s (I think) and the Sharks were stunned, one said “I can’t even get my stuff in Bloomingdale’s!”. Bloomingdales does have this b.cause department that supports various causes, so they got in on that angle.
The repeating theme is millennials want to feel good about what they are buying, that they are somehow helping a cause with every purchase, from shampoo to food to T-shirts.
Rejoice, diabetics, hear hear!carbonfreesugar
The Carbon free sugar is here!
No more Splenda for me
I’ll take sugar in tea
It’s Domino’s sugar this year! http://lenbilen.com/2016/02/26/4707/
Come on, that’s got to be a photo-shopped picture. No one is dumb enough to think sucrose (C12H22O11) is carbon free.
The Domino Sugar Co. apparently thought its customer were, indeed, that dumb.
The you-have-to-be-kidding bag of sugar is discussed by Dr. Christopher Essex in his “Six Impossible Things…” lecture at about 17:15 in the video linked here: http://wattsupwiththat.com/2015/02/20/believing-in-six-impossible-things-before-breakfast-and-climate-models/ — the TV ad is included in Essex’s video.
Please see Annie’s quip here: http://wattsupwiththat.com/2016/02/26/claim-consumers-care-about-carbon-footprint/comment-page-1/#comment-2154302
Gee, I’m going to go right out there and put sugar in my gas tank. The carbon is already offset!!! See you (much) later.
We don’t care for carbon footprints here in Ontario. We just had a provincial budget where, in the name of saving the planet, we will have 5cents/liter additional tax on gasoline, more on diesel, and an additional $5 per month of natural gas, mostly used for home and water heating.
My question to the provincial government is, if this is to fight global warming, then how much colder do you wish to make Ontario?
My thought is that everyone should write to them and ask. 🙂
And how much “carbon pollution” does it take to produce the 5 cent coin taken? Multiply that by the liters of gas etc. (add in the multipliers for the other stored..er…fossil fuels) and what has been saved?
Even if that “carbon pollution” doesn’t include the nickle in your pocket, it takes power for it to show up on your computer screen. PC’s aren’t “Green”. (IE Old CRT’s us less energy than LCD’s.)
Everything about the sugar, EXCEPT, the people who worked the fields, the cane field fires after harvest, the refinement mills, the bags they’re packed in, ships, trains, delivery trucks, pallets, cases, shrink wrap, warehouses, grocery stores, driving the sugar home, and using it to sweeten up tasty delights … is carbon free.
Humans are ~ 18% Carbon
And they exhale CO2.
Evil to the core. This is modern times’ version of Original Sin. Born evil and can only be saved through the intercession of the ‘clergy’. Repent and do penance (pay mone) else you burn in hellfire!
Oops! ( pay money)
Do the Greens care about carbon footprint??
Only until they personally have to pay for it.
Remember – Suzuki does not pay – he uses donations of stupid people.
Are you quite, quite sure no one’s that dumb?
When I saw that pic at the head I just wearily wondered if it was April the First, yet again.
That was meant to be a response to ScienceABC123.
The paper states, “Consumers are increasingly concerned with climate change issues …….”. Are they now? It is the other way round : people can’t be bothered about it these days. What planet are these people on??
“…What planet are these people on??”
Gaia?
carbonfund.org is nothing more than a scam to sign up businesses to use their logo and receive donations from anyone stupid enough. If they even have salespeople I see them laying a guilt and shame inducing pitch on anyone dumb enough to listen. A few hours of imagination and web authoring skills with a .org url and they’re in business with almost no overhead and tax deductible revenue.
One of my favorite BS jobs was labeling on Twizzlers, the red twisted candy strips. The packages said “Fat Free”. Now that was true, because a Twizzler is made from 100% sugar. But they know that the low information shopper will equate “Fat Free” with “low calorie”. Actually a pretty smart ploy.
Sugar only has 4 calories per gram versus 9 calories per gram for fat.
That doesn’t make a 100% sugar product “low calorie”.
I like this Diamond Cut(R) carbon free paper shredder. http://www.carbonfund.org/carbonfree-certified-products/item/4540-gqw120d
“the consumers would prefer manufacturers to offset carbon emissions rather than having to address the problem directly themselves.”
Perfect. The researchers identified the inconvenient truth. Who honestly wants to waste time addressing a non-problem? Of course the vast majority want nothing to do with personally perpetrating the scam, or be scammed.
On a related matter, does anyone actually volunteer to pay extra for their carbon footprint when making a flight booking?
Cats now have to consider their, or maybe their owner’s, “carbon” footprint. We use recycled paper litter pellets that come complete with a suitable message printed on the bag for the moggie’s education.
This sugar is obviously a key ingredient in the latest fad, “The zero carbon diet.” Still to come, “Rid your body of dangerous carbon with our special two week carbon cleanse.” Or how about “mastering the carbon free lifestyle” which sounds more like self help for emergent AI bots…
“Why are the carbon units infesting the Enterprise?” Quoth Veeger, the robotic spacecraft of Star Treck fame.
was ment for sugar thread:
google
‘indian reservation convenience’.
look up sugar, alcohol.
————-
* lots of not asked for help on this gadgets; disturbing