We’d like to remind Forumites to please avoid political debate on the Forum.

This is to keep it a safe and useful space for MoneySaving discussions. Threads that are – or become – political in nature may be removed in line with the Forum’s rules. Thank you for your understanding.

📨 Have you signed up to the Forum's new Email Digest yet? Get a selection of trending threads sent straight to your inbox daily, weekly or monthly!

Tesco Green Club

2»

Comments

  • cepheus
    cepheus Posts: 20,053 Forumite
    edited 5 April 2010 at 6:43PM
    I disagree with Fred Pearce here though.
    Carbon intensity is the new gambit for companies trying to spruce up their green images. They're all doing it. And, sadly, last year the Advertising Standards Authority gave them a green light to carry on.
    Most companies don't go for the outlandish "per-square-foot" measurement of Tesco. They largely measure the carbon intensity of their operations as tonnes of CO2 against product produced or cash turnover.
    But this is scarcely better. It means you can keep churning out more stuff, or flying people to more places or burning more coal in power stations, while claiming all is well because you are doing it with greater carbon efficiency. And many companies do.
    http://www.guardian.co.uk/environment/2009/jan/15/greenwash-tesco

    What other realistic measure could you measure other than carbon intensity, such as carbon/turnover or/and carbon /employee hr?

    Obviously total carbon emissions is useless since you can't then compare companies of different sizes. If a company went bankrupt such as Woolworth's this would reduce their emissions to zero, but it wouldn't be justifiable to credit them with green credentials for this achievement!

    The issue of consumption is an important one but this should be addressed in different ways through education and a carbon tax, based on a overall global carbon limit dictated by the science. However, for simplicity, I think carbon 'intensity' is an adequate if not perfect method of comparing companies from similar sectors (it would be far too complicated to go into carbon footprinting, especially for a supermarket).

    If an energy efficient supermarket expanded and took over less energy efficient ones there is no reason why they shouldn't be credited with this.
  • CharlieBilly
    CharlieBilly Posts: 2,319 Forumite
    Part of the Furniture 1,000 Posts
    Whats wrong with tap water? you want to ban things others like yet still indulge with your things which are unhealthy unless its for medicinal purposes ;)
    Ken68 wrote: »
    My ideal supermarket wouldn't sell any cigarettes either, or high cholesterol stuff or over -processed foods or endangered fish or battery chickens or air miles fruit/veg or ten varieties of bread when just two or three would do. No sugared up food either, or fats.
    Except strong cheese and Cumberland Sausage and ...er...whisky, after all you gotta drink.
This discussion has been closed.
Meet your Ambassadors

🚀 Getting Started

Hi new member!

Our Getting Started Guide will help you get the most out of the Forum

Categories

  • All Categories
  • 352K Banking & Borrowing
  • 253.5K Reduce Debt & Boost Income
  • 454.2K Spending & Discounts
  • 245K Work, Benefits & Business
  • 600.6K Mortgages, Homes & Bills
  • 177.4K Life & Family
  • 258.8K Travel & Transport
  • 1.5M Hobbies & Leisure
  • 16.2K Discuss & Feedback
  • 37.6K Read-Only Boards

Is this how you want to be seen?

We see you are using a default avatar. It takes only a few seconds to pick a picture.