Comments on: Carbon labelling is not so easy

By: still@downfall

still@downfall — Tue, 23 Jun 2009 12:13:43 +0000

Brian #15, I only did a scan over the QCL articles you referred to, noted that the little carbon labelling occurring wasn’t working too well, made the mental comment to myself, ‘not surprised & moved on with my reading. I’ve now handed the paper on, so I can’t quickly check it out. I have no facts at my fingertips on which confirm whether “Australian beef, even Waygu, will be embarrassingly more environmentally friendly than the Japanese product.” However I have the belief that given proper research that many will be surprised that Australian beef from rangeland grazing is more environmentally friendly than what they currently believe.

As to carbon labelling working, we aren’t doing too well with what we are trying to label now. I would like to ask the question how much does the average shopper understand what is currently plastered on their grocery items? There appears to be a great reluctance to have any intelligent straightforward way to communicate what country the product in a grocery item has originated from. The best labelling system I know is the MSA grading system as mention by Brian in the original posting.

MSA beef is a tenderness guaranteed grading program. All MSA graded beef is labelled with a guaranteed grade and recommended cooking method to identify beef eating quality according to consumers.

I don’t believe that this product is to be found at the big supermarket chains but rather at the more traditional butcher shops.

murph the surf, need to think over your comment, will try to reply by tomorrow night.

By: murph the surf.

murph the surf. — Tue, 23 Jun 2009 11:24:50 +0000

still@downfall,
the advantage ( I know this is a debateable point) for the beef producer is that they can always sell the product. I appreciate many costs will rise but productivity will have to rise to cover this.If low quality grazing land can’t return enough it will be better to rethink the enterprise.
You may not get much when you sell and that will drive the way capital is deployed. If there is no margin then producers will progressively leave the market.
On the demand side consumers will change their eating preferences and refocus on certain products . Others will be able to produce a niche product based on being able to have a debt free primary industry enetrprise.
This doesn’t address the more significant problem that there will be growing demand for food but I think beef consumption will become like a luxury product with commensurate pricing.
The main drift seems to be towards sustainable paddocks which are improved with all significant geological and riverine features protected by licence / work orders from the Department of Energy and Water ( NSW ).
Having attended a day discussing the native vegetation Act / river bank revegetation ( CMA ) and the role for National Parks I left in no doubt the legislative framework to put these ideas into effect already exits.
The various departments are using education to advance their agenda at this time.I think this will progressivley change in future and funding for projects will always be available for suitable projects but the areas needed to be given up are substantial.

By: Adrien

Adrien — Tue, 23 Jun 2009 10:01:38 +0000

there must be a mechanism for at each point in the supply chain where the cost of carbon can be passed on.
.
A mechanism.
.
The current markets & economy has become uncoupled from basic natural systems. There is no room in the current market mechanisms that acknowledge the need for sustainability.
.
I agree. Various alternatives to GDP as a measure of economic health have been proposed to address this. Thus far no dice.
.
I tend to support carbon tax because I see it working. I have no ideological preference either way. I don’t think it solves entire the problem of ecologically damaging externality however. But when it comes to methane and carbon dioxide it does put a price on at least two externalities and this is a start.

By: still@downfall

still@downfall — Tue, 23 Jun 2009 09:39:59 +0000

Robert & Adrien 14 & 22, some clarification please. Am I wrong in my understanding that you are saying that whenever there is an output of carbon along a supply change for a goods or service, it is paid for & the cost passed on until this has an aggregate effect on the final price to a consumer. Sounds good in theory but for the full cost of carbon to end up in the final price of the goods or service there must be a mechanism for at each point in the supply chain where the cost of carbon can be passed on.

Off the top of my head I can’t name you anywhere in agriculture where any extra cost can be passed on, the buyer of an agriculture product determines the price. I know, in the short term agriculture is exempt from any carbon tax. But we will be impacted by the likes of trucking companies passing their extra costs onto us and we will not be paid any extra for produce ect.. A compounding effect for me will be beef abattoirs will be impacted by a price on carbon & will pay less for cattle.

If anyone has bothered to read what I have written in other threads they will be getting sick of the next bit. The current markets & economy has become uncoupled from basic natural systems. There is no room in the current market mechanisms that acknowledge the need for sustainability. An improved sustainable landscape will improve the natural carbon/ water cycle; this will then improve long-term food security & lessen carbon in the atmosphere.

By: Adrien

Adrien — Tue, 23 Jun 2009 09:05:26 +0000

Brian your argument rests in the anxiety that comes of a loss of control. The trouble with cap n’ trade is that where there is control it is technocratic control that eludes most of us. If we make carbon production more expensive it stands to reason that most users of it will attempt to save costs and that in doing so will develop innovations that reduce such use.
.
It will also provide funds for renewables research. And a market for the products.

By: Brian

Brian — Tue, 23 Jun 2009 08:39:22 +0000

Yes, but of itself we are then relying on the price to change behaviour and we’re assuming that other goods/services are available with a lesser carbon footprint. I’m in a bigger hurry. Leaving aside ruminants for a moment, there are three main sources of emissions – stationary power from fossil fuels, mobile power from fossil fuels and land use/tree clearing. I reckon we should attack two of those three directly with a program of replacing dirty power with clean power and paying the price as we go.

We are making it all too complicated with a program that we don’t know will work and which is is going to have to be disappear anyway, isn’t it, when we achieve zero emissions.

By: Adrien

Adrien — Tue, 23 Jun 2009 07:47:41 +0000

Robert – This is one of the reasons why putting a price on carbon works well, because all the carbon costs end up in the final price of the good or service sold without having to explicitly account for it all the way up the chain.
.
Hear hear.

By: myriad

myriad — Tue, 23 Jun 2009 06:40:45 +0000

excellent, looking forward to it Brian – and yes, enjoy the sun!

By: Brian

Brian — Tue, 23 Jun 2009 01:32:16 +0000

murph @ 17, that article you linked to was in the printed edition of 18 June. I looked for it, did searches and couldn’t find it because it wasn’t posted until 22 June.

The New Scientist article wasn’t online either until, by accident, I found it under a different title.

These things are meant to try us.

By: Brian

Brian — Tue, 23 Jun 2009 01:24:04 +0000

Next cab off the rank, myriad, and more than half done. The problem is that they promised us more rain today and the sun is shining.

It should be up by tomorrow am.