Would a rating system for all products help the environment ?
An environmentally friendly label for products that last a long time.
and an environmentally hostile label for cheap products that don’t last very long.
Probably not much help, unless consumers actually use it.
Absolutely no chance of getting international agreement on a workable system with integrity and credibility.
Maybe if you started your own system, but who has got the resources for that?
See Good Scientist Cartoon “Star Rating of Star Ratings”
Most environmental rating systems are total rubbish. For example with washing machines, the environmental rating system currently in place ignores the size of the washing machine. The environmental rating systems for heaters and air conditioners are also rubbish for similar reasons – they don’t take into account the frequency with which the devices are used.
The only great rating system I’m aware of is accommodation, and that has nothing to do with the environment.
party_pants said:
Probably not much help, unless consumers actually use it.Absolutely no chance of getting international agreement on a workable system with integrity and credibility.
Maybe if you started your own system, but who has got the resources for that?
So what we need is a system that puts a price on GHG emissions and pays a price for GHG absorptions. That way the future costs of the manufacture and use of the article would be reflected in the price.
It’s just liberal economic good sense.
The Rev Dodgson said:
party_pants said:
Probably not much help, unless consumers actually use it.Absolutely no chance of getting international agreement on a workable system with integrity and credibility.
Maybe if you started your own system, but who has got the resources for that?
So what we need is a system that puts a price on GHG emissions and pays a price for GHG absorptions. That way the future costs of the manufacture and use of the article would be reflected in the price.
It’s just liberal economic good sense.
But that’d be just a big fat new tax, says Tony.
Michael V said:
The Rev Dodgson said:
party_pants said:
Probably not much help, unless consumers actually use it.Absolutely no chance of getting international agreement on a workable system with integrity and credibility.
Maybe if you started your own system, but who has got the resources for that?
So what we need is a system that puts a price on GHG emissions and pays a price for GHG absorptions. That way the future costs of the manufacture and use of the article would be reflected in the price.
It’s just liberal economic good sense.
But that’d be just a big fat new tax, says Tony.
Tony’s dead man.
Michael V said:
The Rev Dodgson said:
party_pants said:
Probably not much help, unless consumers actually use it.Absolutely no chance of getting international agreement on a workable system with integrity and credibility.
Maybe if you started your own system, but who has got the resources for that?
So what we need is a system that puts a price on GHG emissions and pays a price for GHG absorptions. That way the future costs of the manufacture and use of the article would be reflected in the price.
It’s just liberal economic good sense.
But that’d be just a big fat new tax, says Tony.
Unfortunately it’s not just Tony.
Surely there must be at least some people inside the Liberal party that support liberal economic principles though?
The Rev Dodgson said:
party_pants said:
Probably not much help, unless consumers actually use it.Absolutely no chance of getting international agreement on a workable system with integrity and credibility.
Maybe if you started your own system, but who has got the resources for that?
So what we need is a system that puts a price on GHG emissions and pays a price for GHG absorptions. That way the future costs of the manufacture and use of the article would be reflected in the price.
It’s just liberal economic good sense.
What’s your GHC emission rating for bushfires?
mollwollfumble said:
The Rev Dodgson said:
party_pants said:
Probably not much help, unless consumers actually use it.Absolutely no chance of getting international agreement on a workable system with integrity and credibility.
Maybe if you started your own system, but who has got the resources for that?
So what we need is a system that puts a price on GHG emissions and pays a price for GHG absorptions. That way the future costs of the manufacture and use of the article would be reflected in the price.
It’s just liberal economic good sense.
What’s your GHC emission rating for bushfires?
mollwollfumble said:
The Rev Dodgson said:
party_pants said:
Probably not much help, unless consumers actually use it.Absolutely no chance of getting international agreement on a workable system with integrity and credibility.
Maybe if you started your own system, but who has got the resources for that?
So what we need is a system that puts a price on GHG emissions and pays a price for GHG absorptions. That way the future costs of the manufacture and use of the article would be reflected in the price.
It’s just liberal economic good sense.
What’s your GHC emission rating for bushfires?
I don’t understand the question.
You just estimate the GHG emissions from the bushfire/s in question, the same as any other source. Probably easiest to do it once a year, and maybe base the emission fee on 10 year running average.
I know what we need!
We need an environmental rating scheme for people.
What’s your environmental rating?
mollwollfumble said:
I know what we need!We need an environmental rating scheme for people.
What’s your environmental rating?
No, we need a carbon price/tax.