I have previously been rather scathing of the Carbon Trust label.  However, the revamp (Grocer 3 May) makes two key changes, and the result is excellent.  (1) The visual is meaningful - simply a black footprint - easily recognisable  (unlike the previous arrow) and (2) Tesco’s implementation makes a comparison between products in the same category,so there is at last some tangibility meaning that the carbon impact can play a part in the decision making process, should the consumer so wish.

I am not saying this means that it will revolutionise the way we shop (especially in this time of economic uncertainty - looking after number one will be more important than ever, with global, altruistic concerns pushed back down the list in importance), but this small change removes a large number of the doubts I previously had about the scheme. 

As from today, all our fuel now contains a small percentage of biofuel.  Not so long ago, I was a full supporter of such a law.  However, now that I understand what a complex issue it is, with so many negative impacts elsewhere, I’m really not so sure. 

US scientists argue that the carbon debt incurred from carbon released from ploughing virgin soil often outweighs any potential carbon saving from the biofuel.  But it’s the human cost that worries me more.  Land that used to be used for food is now being used for biofuel. The poorest people on this earth will be the ones that suffer most through rapidly escalating costs of basic foods such as wheat and rice.

What to do for the best?  No clear answer. A prime example of the ethical dilemmas facing us today.

Last night I had the opportunity to listen to a number of consumers talk about all green and sustainability issues - they set the agenda talking about what they wanted to talk about on this subject.  And they were recruited in such a way that they weren’t anti-green.

 Whilst there were many many learnings, the two over-arching ones for me were:

1) Consumers are really worried about the big issues of climate change, waste and sustainability, but don’t have the knowledge to know what to do about it…and if they do, they perceive that they can’t afford it

2) Few brands are perceived as being “heros” in this arena…little logos on pack don’t tell enough of a story, and neither do corporate statements hidden away on web pages.  Consumers are crying out for help, guidance, and choice editing (though obviously they don’t call it that!)

So let’s not get bogged down by the little details and worrying whether it’s 100% correct…let’s just get on with doing good things and talk about them boldly so that consumers can start making easy choices.

Ex-Chairman of Shell, Sir Mark Moody-Stuart, tells the BBC News today that he thinks the EU should ban the sale of (new) cars that do under 35 miles to the gallon.

This suggestion is extreme, and would have profound implications on the motor industry if implemented.  But I have to say that I agree that drastic measures such as this are required.  Charging more to have a gas-guzzler (current situation via higher road tax and more petrol etc) simply means that those that can afford it, pay, and in doing so avoid any responsibility.  Paying to use a less efficient car doesn’t actually help solve the underlying problem.

Despite all the buzz around environmental issues, I can’t help but think that we are still generally ”tinkering around the edges”.  Yes, every little does help, but I do believe that as a collective, we need to change our mindset completely and reexamine our high-consumption, throw-away culture.

(PS Yes, I do drive a low emission car, so perhaps I am biased!  But in my heart I would love to be driving an Aston Martin…)

Even Gordon Brown has entered the debate about front-of-pack nutritional labelling, saying it’s confusing for consumers.  All agreed there then.

But today I read that Unilever scientists have conducted consumer research that suggests a simple “tick” on front-of-pack is the best solution to identify “healthy” products.  This I find hard to believe - all the research that I have seen / conducted tells us that consumers want to be able to make their own decisions about what is healthy for them specifically (recognising the multitude of needs and health issues that there are out there).  A simple “tick” is really dumbing things down way too far, suggesting a healthy diet is one-dimensional - “healthy” or “not healthy” food - something even consumers agree with.

But oh yes, the cynic inside me reminds me that Unilever have invited other manufacturers to start using their “Healthy Choice” logo that they first started using in Benelux 18 months ago.  Silly me…now they conveniently have the research to “prove” it…

A news article in this week’s Grocer magazine suggests that “most consumers” recognise the Carbon Trust’s carbon footprint labelling, according to research by Walkers and Boots (both at the forefront of championing the label).  The stats quoted to back this up are:

“78% of 1,068 customers that Walkers polled had heard of the scheme”, and

“68% correctly said that the label showed “the total carbon emmitted during the lifecycle of the product from seed to store”

Without knowing the full details of this study, but only these published snippets, I would like to suggest that this is an outrageous example of mis-interpretation of research data. The sample (Walkers customers) and the question type (presumably multi-choice for the second question) can have such a huge bias as to make the conclusions absurd.  I do not believe for one moment that 2 out of 3 of the UK population understand the carbon label after it being displayed on a mere handful of products for less than a year.

At a conference earlier this week (Provenance & Carbon Footprint of Food & Drink), experts from Walkers, Boots, Cadbury and Co-op all gave presentations and their views regarding their experiences of Carbon Measurement and Carbon Labelling.

When put on the spot, all agreed that measurement was good since it highlighted where the issues are (for a bar of Cadbury Dairy Milk, 70% of the carbon comes from the cows who produce the milk…only 3% comes from flying in the cocoa beans from Ghana).  However, only Walkers were catagoric in saying that they thought labelling was the way forward.  Hhhmm - if the early adopters aren’t evangelical about it, I really can’t see this taking off (see previous blog)… 

Boots are the latest brand to have worked with The Carbon Trust to measure the footprint of one of its SKUs - a bottle of shampoo.

But at the high-profile event that was The Grocer’s Green Issues Conference (26/9) Andrew Jenkins (Boots Sustainability Manager)  spoke out to say that it took 2 months and £40,000 to achieve the measurement - i.e. a considerable (huge) investment.  The sentiment was echoed by the head of corporate responsiblity at John Lewis who said the methodology was “complicated”.

Consider: 

1) Consumers aren’t demanding this information. 

2) The cost of measuring not one, not ten, but hundreds of thousands of SKU carbon footprints across just one retailer

and I would say the label is going nowhere pretty fast…

I was at a wonderful gathering earlier this week, debating the subject of sustainability (thanks to Audi and The  Foundation for the invite!).  One of the speakers was Richard Gillies, Director of Store Development at M&S. 

It was fascinating to hear about the 100 actions that are part of Plan A, but mainly it was refreshing to hear that even with all the investment in research that M&S has, they can’t say for sure how best to resolve conflicting ethical issues.  They really don’t know whether it is “best” to fly flowers in from Kenya (thereby investing in Third World economy but contributing to more planes in the sky) or buying locally grown flowers that don’t need flying in (lower transport emission, but higher greenhouse heating which itself is contributing to CO2 emissions).

 The conclusion of the discussion?  Since both retailers and consumers are confused, then the retailers need to take their best guess, based on the data available - because left to their own, consumers might just get choice paralysis.

I have just learnt about the initiatives that BSkyB are doing in order to be carbon neutral (they achieved carbon neutral status in 2006).  All aspects of the business have been investigated, from the air conditioning systems to fleet management policy to invoicing procedure.

And I must say that some of the changes are very impressive.  Highlights for me include:

• Adding an environmental component to the fleet vehicle selection process (not just CO2 emissisons, but also oxides, diesel particulates etc).  The chosen Vauxhall Vivaro van runs on B30 biodiesel (30% composed of organic plant matter)
• Carbon “credit card” for employees, to encourage lift-sharing and video conferencing
• Utilising only taxi companies who use hybrid engine cars

Only once they got their own house in order, they then started to encourage thier customers to go greener.  One initiative for example was to give away 4,000 long-life lightbulbs to subscribers - with 97% uptake and nearly 75% saying they had become more focussed on energy saving as a result.

I love the fact that this company has so clearly committed itself, analysed its own practices and only then started to engage its customers.  No “greenwashing” here….