Imagine wandering the supermarket aisles and choosing your breakfast cereal based upon how much carbon dioxide or other greenhouse gas was emitted to make and distribute a box of, say, corn flakes.

There’d be emissions for planting the corn, tending the fields, harvesting the grain, processing the cereal (which includes growing, harvesting, processing, and transporting the other ingredients in corn flakes: sugar, vitamins, minerals, etc.), making the cereal boxes and liners, packaging the cereal, transporting the finished product, and, possibly, the emissions associated with your trip to the market.

If it were a really good system, the emissions attributable to a box of corn flakes might include emissions related building the trucks that haul the cereal (everything from the tires to the asphalt roads), the clothing on the farmer’s back, the tanker that carried the oil for the plastic box-liner, the irrigation system that watered the field, and a host of other things. It may even account for the emissions related to a resource economist sitting down to add up all these factors (his paper, pen, lighting, computer, clothing, desk, chair, etc.).

Clearly, this could get way out of hand very quickly. And, undoubtedly, the emissions would probably only be a rough estimate. 

Labeling "carbon footprints"
To Americans, that probably sounds pretty far-fetched. But that’s exactly what’s happening on the other side of the Atlantic.

Many companies in the UK food and dry goods industries have begun labeling the products sold in their stores so that a consumer can know a product’s "carbon footprint" or "food-miles" or any other piece of climate change-related information.

The labeling is part of a program initiated by the Carbon Trust. As part of the program, participating companies are also required to reduce the amount of carbon dioxide emitted as a result of the manufacture and transportation of their products over a two-year period.

Three of the first companies to announce such labeling were Walkers (a potato chip-maker), Boots (a UK-wide pharmacy chain), and innocent (a natural fruit-drink maker). Walkers' cheese and onion chips was the first product to get the carbon label—little black and white boxes showing that each packet was responsible for 75 grams (2.6 ounces) of carbon dioxide. Now, all Walkers’ potato chips get the labels.

Boots added carbon labels to its Botanics line of hair-care products in July. Innocent has the label for smoothie recipes on its Web site. 

Expanding the program
But bigger things are afoot. Back in January, Tesco, the UK’s biggest retailer announced emissions labels for all 70,000 products that the chain carries.

Other UK chains, including Marks & Spencer, Asda, and Sainsbury’s, have likewise announced schemes to label products and/or make themselves "carbon neutral." And there has been talk about carbon labels for everything from clothing to furniture.

Last month, the UK press reported that Coca-Cola, Dairy Milk chocolate, and Andrex toilet paper might join Walkers, Boots, and other manufacturers involved in labeling carbon footprints. 

The dilemma
But will this make it any easier for a consumer to do the right thing?

Certainly, it poses a few dilemmas. After all, organically grown fruits and vegetables shipped by boat from South America might actually have a smaller carbon footprint than produce from a local greenhouse that’s had the heat cranked up all winter. And fair trade coffee from East Africa with a larger carbon footprint might be better for the environment in other ways than locally grown coffee that isn’t fair trade.

What effect will this have on things like nutrition, if, say, a consumer decides a “low carbon” candy bar is a better snack than a health-food bar with a large carbon footprint. What about fashion? Transportation? Real estate? And how could all this affect trade barriers? 

Raising the level of conversation
Carbon labeling is a good thing. Any information manufacturers can give consumers raises the level of the conversation and informs purchasing decisions.

The ongoing controversy surrounding "organic" foodstuffs is a case in point. Although there is a great deal of difference between what the USDA calls "organic" and what a consumer might call "organic," the booming market for organic food has forced food producers to increase the amount of information they share regarding food production, transportation, and distribution.

Today, the companies doing the labeling have been put in the position of reducing their emissions because they want to keep and grow their market share, and it’s unlikely they’ll turn back. We consumers will now demand it. Walkers, the potato chip maker, has reported that they’ve reduced energy use by a third per packet of chips since 2000—enough to influence my chip-buying decisions at the grocery store.

So I say, bring it on.

And to the critics who ask if this will this make a difference, I have one point: changing my lifestyle one packet of potato chips—one bottle of shampoo, one smoothie, one whatever—at a time is extremely easy and better than not at all. Especially when there’s a good reason.

Cameron M. Burns is Senior Editor at Rocky Mountain Institute.