How useful are climate labels?
Öko-Institut makes recommendations on the use of product carbon footprints
What greenhouse gas emissions are associated with a beef steak or a pack of frozen vegetables? What carbon emissions arise during the manufacture, use and disposal of a TV or a freezer? In recent years a number of new schemes for analysing product carbon footprints (PCFs) have emerged all over the world, accompanied by private or state-run product labelling schemes. A new international standard (ISO 14067) for the calculation of carbon footprints is due to be developed by 2010.
But do these climate labels really make sense? Do they encourage consumers and producers to attach more weight to climate-friendly production methods? What requirements must a PCF meet? How should businesses label their products in the period before completion of the international PCF standardization process? To answer these questions, the Öko-Institut was commissioned by the German Environment Ministry BMU and Environment Agency UBA to review CO2 labelling of goods and services. The findings have now been published in a document entitled "Product Carbon Footprint Memorandum".
Some 50 national and international organizations and companies were surveyed for the study; unresolved issues were clarified at international expert workshops and two major congresses. The results show that greenhouse gas inventories have many advantages for businesses. For example, they make it possible to identify CO2 reduction potentials throughout the product chain, all the way from suppliers to production and logistics. In addition the climate footprint helps to identify different patterns of consumption and thus provides useful information for product development and appropriate consumer communication. "In practice, however, CO2 labels don't mean much to consumers", says Dr. Rainer Griesshammer, a member of the Öko-Institut Executive Board and an expert in product-related climate protection. "They don't provide consumers with any basis for comparison or any further recommendations for action; other environmental aspects are ignored. In addition, the plethora of environmental labels is creating growing confusion."
The Öko-Institut's study also shows that comparative CO2 labelling of products that meets the requirements of competition law will not be possible in the foreseeable future. This is particularly clear in the case of foods, which are currently at the centre of the CO2 labelling debate – there are simply too many differences between products and too much variation in seasonally fluctuating yields, transport routes and the impacts of storage and chilling.
As a general rule the Öko-Institut recommends that other environmentally relevant aspects of products should be highlighted in addition to the carbon footprint; existing informative environmental labels can be used for this purpose. For example, CO2 or energy efficiency labels already exist for electricity, cars and electrical appliances. In Germany, for instance, the Blue Angel scheme is an eco-label that takes account of all important environmental criteria – not just energy consumption and greenhouse gas emissions – and which is currently applied to around 30 product groups. The study also makes important recommendations for the international standardization process associated with the ongoing development of the ISO standard on PCFs. A key point made by the authors is that the British standard PAS 2050:2008, which is currently the subject of much debate, does not provide a suitable methodological basis for development of an internationally uniform life cycle assessment standard.
Further information
Contact
Dr. Rainer Griesshammer
Member of the Executive Board
Sustainable Products & Material Flows Division
Freiburg office
Tel. +49-761-45295-50
E-mail contact
Christian Hochfeld
Member of the Executive Board
Infrastructure & Enterprises Division
Berlin office
Tel. +49-30-405085-361
E-mail contact