Can you measure the carbon dioxide emissions of the things you buy?

When you eat your lunch, do you ever wonder how many grams of greenhouse gases were emitted in the process of putting it on your plate? And how about that tee shirt you put on this morning?

There’s growing interest in trying to measure such emissions and share the information with consumers. So-called carbon emission labels attempt to determine the total emissions created during manufacturing, transporting, and disposing of a product.

“We think of carbon as the new calorie,” said Prakash Arunkundrum, head of global operations and sustainability at Logitech, the technology accessories manufacturer, which recently rolled out carbon labels on several products, including a gaming mouse and keyboard. “We want carbon to be that thing that you look at and you say, ‘Okay, am I going to really need this in my life today?’ ”

Logitech estimates that its wireless gaming mouse, for example, generates 7.84 kilograms (kg) of carbon emissions throughout its estimated two-year use period. That may be modest, but think of all the products you use. Manufacturing a Ford Focus Titanium costs about 8,000 kg CO2e, The Washington Post’s Jessica Wolfrom reported. That estimate came from Mike Berners-Lee, a professor at Lancaster University in the UK and an expert on carbon footprinting.

The world's first carbon label, the Carbon Reduction Label, was introduced in the UK in 2006 by the Carbon Trust. Some of the first products to feature these labels were Kingsmill bread, British Sugar, and Cemex cement. “Consumers are increasingly engaged on this... as a proxy, they’re looking for companies to show that they are aware of climate change and sustainability and they’re taking action on it,” Carbon Trust CEO Tom Delay told The Post.

One such company is Just Salad, which claims it was the first restaurant to produce a carbon-label menu. While there are tools that can calculate emissions for various agricultural and other products, the challenge for Just Salad was dialing in those measurements for each of the dozens of ingredients on its menu and then for each menu item, according to Sandra Noonan, the chief sustainability officer for the New York-based chain. She told Restaurant Business’s Joe Guszkowski that her company enlisted MBA students at New York University’s Stern School of Business to do some of that “heavy lifting.” 

Due, in large part, to the complexity of the number-crunching, some environmentalists are skeptical of the corporate push toward consumer labels, Wolfram discovered. “Reliable data about carbon emissions consumed in the manufacturing process is scarce,” she wrote, “leaving companies to establish their own methodologies. Carbon labels also are not regulated and require consumers to translate relatively complex scientific terms like ‘carbon equivalents’ on the fly.”

Last year, Priscilla Tsai, founder of the beauty brand Cocokind, began working with a third party to calculate the carbon emissions of her products. She told The Post that the process was cumbersome and expensive, but she believes the labels have been well received by customers. The undertaking also prompted her to reconsider where the company obtains some of its ingredients. She does worry that the labels may confuse some people. “Most consumers don’t know how to read a carbon label yet,” she said. “We are putting out the education and we’re asking consumers to learn with us.”

Panera Bread teamed up with World Resources Institute (WRI) to devise an alternative, Wolfram reported. “The chain began tracking its carbon footprint in 2015, but was struggling to make these complex calculations digestible for customers, said Sara Burnett, Panera’s vice president of food values, sustainability and public relations. ‘We just kept asking ourselves a question like, how do I take this really complicated topic of climate change and literally bring it down to the plate level?’”

With WRI’s help, Panera created a label identifying which meals fall below a threshold of 5.38 kg of carbon emissions per lunch or dinner — a number that WRI says is needed to cut food-related emissions 25 percent by 2030, in line with the goals of the Paris climate agreement. If the item falls below that level, it is labeled a “Cool Food Meal,” with a grinning green emoji.

Consumer awareness of his or her carbon footprint is a smart way to drive down carbon dioxide emissions. An even better way is to put an honest price on carbon. Encourage those who represent you on Capitol Hill to enact a carbon tax--this year. 

It's Time for Business Leaders to Deliver Climate Message on Capitol Hill

It’s time for U.S. companies to “show up” on Capitol Hill and start encouraging lawmakers to back climate legislation that the companies profess to support. Senator Sheldon Whitehouse (D-RI), a leading voice on climate action, delivered that message a number of weeks ago via The Washington Post. 

With few signs that big business was, in fact, showing up, Whitehouse recently told Politico’s Anthony Adragna, “If anybody in corporate America actually wants to show up and be heard in a positive way on a climate bill, basically, they better get off their rear end right now and let people know because the clock is running out.”

Were any of the senator’s Republican colleagues, Adragna asked, “sincerely interested in working with you on carbon pricing,” a policy that Whitehouse has championed. He replied that some were but that the “political calculus they are looking at has not changed.” That is, that “the fossil fuel sector of corporate America remains aggressively determined to punish anyone who crosses them and the rest of corporate America--despite a lot of good behavior in their corporate precincts and a lot of very sweet public statements to consumers, investors and so forth--have not put climate on their political agenda in Congress. At all.” 

The trade associations, Whitehouse maintained, either are “against good climate policy or don’t have it as a priority. He cited the American Beverage Association and TechNet, which represents Silicon Valley firms. A year ago, he said, TechNet “didn’t even mention climate change in their congressional pitch materials, and this year they gave it a passing mention.

“So the message that my Republican friends are getting from their corporate clientele is resounding: We don’t care, unless we do, in which case we’re against you doing anything. So they’re still captured in the cage of the fossil fuel industry and don’t see a safe exit.”

One policy that is receiving a more positive response, said Whitehouse, is carbon capture and sequestration. And he believes that the best opportunity for climate action this year is probably the infrastructure initiative that the Biden administration and Congress are debating.

While most corporate lobbyists have taken a go-slow approach, there are at least some signs of progress. The Center for Climate and Energy Solutions (C2ES) organized a statement by 42 leading U.S. companies urging the Biden administration and Congress to work together to enact ambitious, durable, and bipartisan climate policies. As C2ES put it, “The companies pointed to the grave risks presented by climate change, but also the economic benefits of tackling it—creating jobs, driving growth, and strengthening U.S. competitiveness.”

Signers included Amazon, Bank of America, DuPont, Edison International, Ford Motor Company, General Motors, Google, LafargeHolcim, Microsoft, Morgan Stanley, Unilever United States, and Walmart. Collectively, the 42 companies have nearly 5 million employees and generate $3 trillion in annual revenues.

“Creating a net-zero economy also requires strong, sustained leadership from Washington,” said C2ES President Bob Perciasepe. “That’s what these companies are calling for. They see this as a critical moment, and they’re pledging to work with the new administration and Congress to enact ambitious climate policy.”

Some American companies are not waiting for Congress to act. They feel they don’t have that luxury as they face pressure on multiple fronts. “Multinationals like Ford, for example, must meet climate standards set by China and Europe,” Politico’s Lorraine Woellert reported May 17.

“Automakers look at the rest of the world and have realized the U.S. has been lagging, and they’ve charged ahead knowing that the U.S. has to catch up,” Cox Automotive executive analyst Michelle Krebs told Woellert. “If you do business around the world, you have to meet the regulations and demands in those markets, too.” Ford made headlines recently with its unveiling of an electric-powered F-150 pickup, the perennial sales leader among U.S.-made vehicles.

The Partnership for Responsible Growth continues to make the rounds on Capitol Hill explaining the benefits of carbon pricing in the belief that the opportunity to make it part of national policy is approaching. Our team includes former Republican Congressman Francis Rooney (FL), who authored carbon tax legislation and is now a member of our Advisory Board. 

“We need to have a strong bill in Congress if we're going to solve the climate crisis,” Whitehouse told The Post. “So, the corporate America world not bothering to show up in Congress on climate is really consequential. And thankfully, that is beginning to change, just beginning.”

One-Two Punch: Heat Waves & Power Outages

Here comes summer--and probably heat waves that could prove deadly to many Americans, just as we’re hoping to emerge from a pandemic. 

Heat is already the most dangerous type of severe-weather event, by one estimate killing some 12,000 Americans each year. And climate change is making heat waves more frequent and severe.

In addition to deaths, extreme heat events cause a wide range of other health problems, such as rashes, cramps, heat exhaustion, and heat stroke, according to the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC). Extreme heat can also make existing medical conditions worse, the agency says.

As if that weren’t enough of a concern, The New York Times’ Christopher Flavelle recently reported that heat waves and power failures are becoming a one-two punch that “poses a severe threat that major American cities are not prepared for.”

He cited new research, published in the journal Environmental Science & Technology, finding that “power failures have increased by more than 60 percent since 2015, even as climate change has made heat waves worse.”

The researchers used computer models to study Detroit, Atlanta, and Phoenix and, Flavelle wrote, “estimated that a combined blackout and heat wave would expose at least two-thirds of residents in those cities to heat exhaustion or heat stroke.

“And although each of the cities in the study has dedicated public cooling centers for people who need relief from the heat, those centers could accommodate no more than 2 percent of a given city’s population, the authors found, leaving an overwhelming majority of residents in danger.”

The lead author, Brian Stone Jr., told Flavelle, “A widespread blackout during an intense heat wave may be the deadliest climate-related event we can imagine.” Unfortunately, Stone considers such a scenario “increasingly likely.” He is a professor at the School of City & Regional Planning at the Georgia Institute of Technology. His team included eight other researchers — from Georgia Tech, Arizona State, the University of Michigan, and the University of Guelph in Ontario.

The changing climate also seems to be making power failures more common. From 2015 to 2020, the number of blackouts annually in the United States doubled, Stone said. And those blackouts were more likely to occur during the summer, suggesting they were being driven in part by high temperatures, which increase demand on the electrical grid as people turn up their air conditioners.

Because both heat waves and blackouts are becoming more frequent, “the probability of a concurrent heat wave and blackout event is very likely rising as well,” Dr. Stone told The Times.

The numbers developed by Stone’s team were sobering. In Atlanta, more than 350,000 people, or about 70 percent of residents, would be exposed to indoor temperatures of at least 89.6 degrees, the level at which the National Weather Service’s heat classification index says heat exhaustion and heat stroke are possible.

In Detroit, more than 450,000, or about 68 percent, would be exposed to that indoor temperature. In Phoenix, where a vast majority of residents rely on air conditioning, the entire population would be at risk. That’s almost 1.7 million people.

Not surprisingly, the threat is greatest for the lowest-income households, who are 20 percent less likely to have central air conditioning than the highest-income households.

Other U.S. cities face similar health threats. “We find that millions are at risk,” said Stone. “Not years in the future, but this summer.”

Among the places where there is nervousness is California. That state, which has been hit with drought, heat, and wildfires, has become all too familiar with power outages. Politico’s Colby Bermel reported that California “is at risk of not having enough electricity this summer to weather an extreme heat wave, which could lead to rolling blackouts like those experienced last August, energy officials said May 4.”

The proliferation of such problems has driven up the percentage of Americans who want Congress to take action. But too few politicians are responding. Most economists say that the quickest solution--and it’s only a partial solution--is to enact a carbon tax. A new study by Resources for the Future reached the same conclusion. We need to push members of Congress to take that action as soon as possible.

Business leaders urge senators to price carbon

The week of April 12, more than a dozen Republican and Democratic senators returned to Capitol Hill and sat down with executives from major companies such as GM, IBM, Ford, and Procter & Gamble. The message: We want you to support a carbon tax.

The meetings were set up by the Climate Leadership Council, which has proposed a measure that would establish a $40-per-ton carbon fee and a border carbon adjustment, and would return the proceeds of the levy to all taxpayers as “dividends.” Greg Bertelsen, the Council’s CEO, said, “No other climate policy will go further in lowering emissions, stimulating innovation across the economy, boosting American competitiveness and supporting families than carbon dividends… Business leaders are committed to addressing our climate challenge, and the consensus among them is that a carbon price is a central part of the solution."

“Carbon pricing proposals have continued to proliferate on Capitol Hill,” reported Nick Sobczyk of E&E News. He cited measures introduced by Senate Majority Whip Dick Durbin (D-Ill.) and Rep. Marie Newman (D-Ill.), who is the lead sponsor of H.R. 2451, a House companion to Durbin's "America's Clean Future Fund Act." This legislation would price carbon at $25 per ton, increasing $10 over inflation annually, with much of the revenue sent back out in dividend checks. Rep. Ted Deutch (D-Fla.) introduced his latest carbon fee bill with 35 Democratic co-sponsors on April 1.

“Big companies across the board have ramped up their climate advocacy in preparation for action from the Biden administration,” Sobczyk wrote, “and now many are calling for ambitious national targets ahead of the president's Earth Day summit on April 22.” Biden has invited 40 nations to participate in the two-day event, which will be streamed live and available to the public. 

More than 300 businesses, including Google, McDonalds and Walmart, are pushing the Biden administration to nearly double the United States’ target for cuts to planet-warming emissions. They sent a letter to President Biden April 13.

“Millions of Americans are already feeling the impacts of climate change,” they wrote. “From recent extreme weather to deadly wildfires and record-breaking hurricanes, the human and economic losses of the past 12 months alone are profound. Tragically, these devastating climate impacts also disproportionately hit marginalized and low-income communities who are least able to withstand them. We must act now to slow and turn the tide.

“As business leaders, we care deeply about the future of the U.S. and the health of its people and economy.” The businesses employ nearly 6 million American workers across all 50 states, representing over $3 trillion in annual revenue. Those in the group who are investors represent more than $1 trillion in assets under management. 

“Organizers of the business letter,” The New York Times’ Lisa Friedman reported, “said they hoped such a message coming from the private sector — including electric utilities like Exelon and Pacific Gas & Electric, as well as dozens of companies based in Republican districts — would resonate strongly with Congress.”

“I think this signals a major shift in the corporate community’s understanding of the urgency of climate change as a systemic financial risk,” Anne Kelly, vice president for government affairs at the sustainability nonprofit Ceres, told Friedman. Ceres organized the letter.

Patrick Flynn, vice president of sustainability for Salesforce, which signed on to the letter, said he hopes businesses will lobby Congress to support the Biden administration’s target. “We know it will create millions of jobs, we know it’s a good thing for the economy, and we know if we do it right we can do it in a way that leaves no one behind,” he said.

Carbon pricing has won support recently from the Business Roundtable, the U.S. Chamber of Commerce, and the American Petroleum Institute. Some champions of strong national action on climate have noted such organizations’ opposition to climate legislation in the past and questioned their commitment to the cause. But there’s nothing to be gained by dwelling on the past or on motivation; anyone willing to put an oar in the water should be welcomed aboard.

Support for carbon pricing, which is stronger in Europe and other parts of the world than it is in Washington, needs additional advocates. John Kerry, Biden's special climate envoy, said earlier this month that the president “believes that at some point in time we need to find out a way to have a price on carbon that’s effective." Treasury Secretary Janet Yellen is another long-time proponent of a carbon tax. We are continuing to meet with members of Congress and their aides to make the case that, in one form or another, an honest price on carbon has to be one of the tools the nation uses to counter climate change.

THE MOVE TO ELECTRIC VEHICLES IS IN GEAR

Transportation has now become the greatest source of carbon dioxide emissions in the United States. So tackling the climate challenge calls for an all-out effort to retire the internal combustion engine. 

One by one, major automakers are coming to grips with that reality. General Motors said it aims to stop selling new gasoline-powered cars and light trucks by 2035 and will pivot to battery-powered models. Volvo said it would move even faster and introduce an all-electric lineup by 2030. Ford, Volkswagen, and other manufacturers also have announced such goals. As a result, EVs are expected to account for half of all vehicles produced in the world by 2030, according to UBS Global Research, up from three to four percent today.

Tesla, of course, has dominated the landscape so far, but there are a number of cars available. As Norman Mayersohn put it in The New York Times, “Electrics are available in many sizes, shapes and prices, with models that can be basic errand-chasers or outrageous sports cars.” He listed 14, describing each one briefly. Today there are 1.8 million EVs on U.S. roads.

Is there an American EV that has the potential to woo undecided motorists and help end the nation's fascination with giant gas-guzzlers? The answer may be the Ford Mustang Mach-E, according to Karl Brauer, executive publisher of the website CarExpert, and Ivan Drury of Edmunds.com. ABC News’ Morgan Korn reported: “The slinky SUV boasts an estimated range of up to 300 miles, and the more pricey GT version posts a 0-60 mph sprint of 3.8 seconds, faster than some conventional Mustangs on the road today.” Prices start at $42,895.

It would be wise, though, to season all the enthusiasm with a dash of reality. “The consumer in the middle of America just isn’t there yet,” when it comes to switching to electric vehicles, St. Louis car dealer Brad Sowers told The Wall Street Journal. He cited the long distances many of his customers drive daily and a lack of charging infrastructure outside major cities. 

To address that shortage, President Joe Biden has proposed adding 500,000 charging stations over the next decade. Today, there are just 100,000.

Another hard reality: There are 280 million vehicles on the nation’s roads. Even if every car sold this year were electric, it would take a number of years to scrap all those that run on fossil fuels. 

It’s also important to remember that the electricity that powers EVs is coming from power plants, a sizable percentage of which are burning coal, natural gas, or oil--and thus emitting greenhouse gases. So moving those plants to renewable sources is vital.

Then there’s the challenge of obtaining enough of the raw material needed to build all the batteries. Lithium is a critical ingredient and, while deposits can be found all over the world, it’s difficult to turn them into the chemicals that power batteries, The Wall Street Journal explained. 

Finding and developing lithium is a key to success for a nation’s automakers. During her confirmation hearing, Energy Secretary Jennifer Granholm said the United States needs to manufacture more batteries at home if it wants to compete in the world's electric vehicle market. “Of the 142-lithium ion battery mega factories that are under construction,” she testified, “107 are in China. Nine are in the U.S. We can't sustain this,” she said. “We have got to lean in much more quickly.”

The country setting the EV standard is Norway. Battery electric vehicles made up 54.3 percent of all new cars sold there in 2020, up from 42.4 percent in 2019. Government policies play a large role in ramping up EV percentages. The EU has been ambitious, while the United States has moved more slowly. That should change during the Biden administration. 

One way that the administration could help is through its own fleet purchases. The federal government has 650,000 vehicles, everything from Army Humvees to Social Security Administration staff cars, NPR’s Brian Naylor reported.

By far, the largest chunk of the federal fleet, about a third, is the U.S. Postal Service's delivery trucks. In February Postmaster General Louis DeJoy announced a new contract to replace many of those aging, gas-guzzling vehicles. Unfortunately, he said that only about 10 percent of those new trucks would be electric vehicles, explaining that the USPS can’t afford the additional $3 billion to $4 billion he estimates it would take to make the fleet 90-percent electric.

Short-sighted? Definitely. That’s why 17 Democratic congressmen have just introduced a bill that would provide the funds to ensure that at least 75 percent of the new fleet consists of electric or zero-emission vehicles.

Another sensible fleet target: the nation’s 65,000 transit buses. The federal government covers most of the capital costs, and if the Federal Transportation Authority paid, say, 60 percent of the cost of new diesel buses and, perhaps, 85 percent of the cost of electric or other zero-emission buses, that would be a strong incentive for cities, states, and other operators of public bus fleets to go electric. Congress should enact such a differential. Electric buses cost more than diesel buses, but they have lower maintenance and fuel costs

One sound way to accelerate the move to EVs would be an honest price on carbon emissions. That would make it more expensive to operate a car burning fossil fuels. Congress is working on a package of climate change measures, and a carbon fee should be in it.