[nurettin]

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]

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]

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.

[lozenge]

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]

> 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]

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...

[1]: https://iopscience.iop.org/article/10.1088/1748-9326/aa7541#...

[maxerickson]

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.

[goodpoint]

You are confusing 2 different things.

The concept of "carbon footprint" truly is corporate propaganda and deflection.

That does not imply that individuals are morally entitled to overconsume.

[lozenge]

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.

[gruez]

> 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.

AFAIK SUV sales replacing sedan sales is a trend that has been going on for decades[1]. Blaming it on "[car companies] don't want to put in the engineering effort" doesn't make sense.

[1] https://assets.bwbx.io/images/users/iqjWHBFdfxIU/iukk8bw9OXn...

[maxerickson]

Only marketers have agency.

Marketers and the US government.

[steeleyespan]

Sarcastic, yet perhaps closer than you realize. People are very malleable to propaganda.

[goodpoint]

Responsibility should come with power.

Marketers and companies in general have enormous power to manipulate people and yet they dodge responsibilities all the time.

[enviclash]

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