Best Foot Forward

Globally, we now require the equivalent of 1.4 planets to support our lifestyles. But of course, we only have one Earth. The result is that our supply of natural resources - like trees and fish - continues to shrink, while our waste, primarily carbon dioxide, accumulates.

Whereas the fall of Lehman Brothers, Merrill Lynch, Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac made headlines worldwide in September, Overshoot Day passed by with little comment. We wonder which will have the longest lasting consequences?

However, Packaging News this week reports one producer that is moving from glass to plastic - and claiming an associated 40% reduction in the carbon footprint of a bottle. BFF would be keen to review these calculations but we have been unable to find detailed reports to substantiate the figures presented. Perhaps even more interesting is the article’s reference to using aluminium – a very carbon intensive material – to make bottles instead. No comment is made in the article on the footprint of the aluminium bottles.

We hope all of these decisions have been underpinned by robust carbon footprint measurements which, crucially, have: drawn boundaries to include the full product life-cycle; used appropriate accounting rules and applied consistent assumptions when comparing packaging systems. 

In the past the not insignificant personal footprint of Al Gore, seasoned US politician and now the world's most famous (and travelled) climate campaigner, has been justified by means of 'intellectual offsetting' - a new term coined to write-off personal impacts for the greater good.

However bloggers have been less charitable to Senator John McCain, whose 7+ homes have been recently estimated to emit 150 tonnes of carbon dioxide a year - 10 times the footprint of an average American. Perhaps it's not surprising then that his Climate Change Plan makes no mention of reducing consumption - but instead relies solely on market-based cap-and-trade mechanisms and "advanced technology". Of course being apolitical there is no comment from BFF on which party we would like to see gaining power for the next four years...!  

However, this approach is not without its critics – notably the outspoken head of Ecotricity who rightly points out that not all electricity suppliers are equal. Some invest considerably more in new renewable generating capacity than others and are therefore doing more than their fair share to ensure that Government’s challenging renewable targets are met. From the users’ perspective, having the ability to confidently select a lower carbon supplier empowers them to actively reduce the footprint of their consumption. BFF would argue that at sufficiently high levels, user demand for lower carbon tariffs would stimulate demand for the construction of more renewable electricity projects. 

Having worked with Defra and several utility companies, including Ecotricity, BFF’s view is that some account does need to be taken of the contribution to carbon savings by suppliers and users. A good starting point is electricityinfo – a website which provides data on the carbon intensity of electricity by supplier. BFF uses these figures to inform clients about different suppliers and, interestingly enough, the data for the site is sourced from Ofgem and Defra’s sister department BERR!

BFF Technical Director Craig Simmons, who recently co-authored a European Commission study on the Ecological Footprint as a national sustainability indicator, commented: “Such studies are valuable in helping to identify strategic national environmental priorities and provide a metric for monitoring progress.”

To avoid this problem, BFF has been employed by high profile companies (other than Shell!) to ensure their carbon claims are not just 'greenwashing' and stand up to scrutiny. For example, Volkswagen employed us to calculate the emission savings from driving the Polo BlueMotion over a year instead of the average car in its class, and compared the figure to savings from recycling paper, drinks cans and plastic bags. Advertising campaigns were run in print, online and on television.

In the Radio 4 interview, Guy Parker, Deputy Director of ASA, said: "There are more and more environmental claims and we are receiving more and more complaints about them. We are at the forefront of trying to decide whether or not claims like 'sustainable', 'carbon neutral', 'carbon zero', 'carbon negative' are justified in the context of the initiatives that the advertisers have got."

Read more about the Shell case on the FT, Guardian and Telegraph websites. The ASA interview is available on the BBC's website (listen to the business news at 2hrs43mins). The ASA's full adjudication can also be read on their website.

In May, edie reported that greenwash complaints to the ASA had soared: "The ASA's Annual Report 2007 revealed objections about green claims more than doubled with 561 complaints about 410 adverts, compared to just 117 complaints about 83 adverts in 2006".

This debate is best exemplified by examining China – a nation commonly cited as an ever-increasing producer of carbon dioxide emissions. A recent study by Carnegie Mellon University has estimated China’s “export goods emissions” contribute 33% of the country’s national footprint - a total of 1.7bn tonnes of CO₂ (equivalent to the combined emissions of the UK, France and Germany).

BFF considers that ‘demand’ from consumers at an individual, corporate, or national level drives the ‘supply’ industries. The production needed to ‘supply’ goods leads to GHG emissions but the responsibility for the emissions sits with the consumer, i.e demand, side. Of course producers must maximise their efficiency of production, but this is something that can be driven in part by demand preferences of consumers.

BFF recognises the complexity of developing national footprint accounts from our own experience (and the enormous challenge of developing international agreements). However, the progress of carbon accounting rules and associated agreements must recognise these underlying behaviours if change is to occur.