With eco-labelling becoming more prevalent we decided to ask if Engineer readers apply environmental criteria when buying big ticket items like cars or white goods.
Energy consumption of the purchased item in use was the most important factor for 46 per cent of respondents, followed by just over a fifth (21 per cent) who believe the cost of the item outweighs any environmental considerations.
A total of 15 per cent of respondents looked to the embodied carbon emitted during the production of an item, followed by five per cent who consider the emissions generated when transporting consumer goods.
The remaining 13 per cent opted for ‘none of the above’, including John Hartley who would’ve liked to have seen a ‘cradle to grave’ option.
“Remember the shock when the Jeep Wrangler was named greenest car a few years ago?’ John said. “Its fuel consumption was high, but it was a simple design to manufacture & recycle, so over its life, it was greener than an electric or hybrid car.”
Ekij suggested that ‘cost’ is misleading. “I try and look at total running cost which is a combination of purchase cost and day-to-day running cost,” said Ekij. “Alas I would struggle to believe the carbon or energy used in manufacture as these are too easy to lie about.”
“The accounting of ‘carbon footprint’ is almost impossible to evaluate,” said Sandy. “We can’t make solar panels without making glass, extracting semiconductor materials, mining copper etc, likewise we can’t make wind turbines without carbon fibres, resin , concrete , steel, digging holes etc. Measuring the carbon oxides produced during manufacture of a vehicle takes no account of the production sites and processes necessary to produce the glass, plastics, paint, wiring and steel or aluminium. We have to face it, we are too numerous and we consume too much.”
What do you think? Let us know in Comments below but please familiarise yourself with our Guidelines for comments before doing so.
“The kind of data that is now readily available includes …”. In my experience the availability of decent Life-Cycle-Analyses is almost non-existent. For products that I am involved in, the consumer use far outweighs the resourcing, manufacture & delivery from an environmental impact perspective. Hence the emphasis on items that are efficient for the consumer.
The selection of options is a little niaive in that when buying or selling goods or services the specification is the basis of supply. If the spec asks for low NOx burners, we offer low NOx burners, if it does not we offer lower cost units.
I have never seen a spec that asks for / evaluates the carbon footprint or specifies recycleablity other than as broad general principles. Most buyers seem concerned with functional compliance at the lowest price.
The consumer likes simple good/bad labelling: red tractors or Fairtrade logos. I suspect the calculation here is a more nuanced one; if you assess an electric vehicle based on embedded carbon during manufacture you may get a different answer to lifetime energy use
Who would provide impartial, independent assessment of competing products and who pays? If it’s the manufacturers themselves, how independent will the assessment be?
Finally, a compulsory compliance scheme would be bad for smaller businesses that are disproportionately affected by implementation costs
It all depends.
For many products, such as a car with ICE, the carbon consumed in normal use far outweighs that used in manufacture.
For EVs, however, assuming it is powered from green electricity, its carbon footprint is almost entirely from manufacture.
But assessing the carbon used in manufacture is going to involve a lot of guesswork, and will be mostly unverifiable too.
First , we must stop referring to emission of ‘carbon’; it’s not, it’s carbon oxides. We don’t emit elemental carbon except by smuts and smoke particles.
The accounting of ‘ carbon footprint’ is almost impossible to evaluate. We can’t make solar panels without making glass, extracting semiconductor materials, mining copper etc, likewise we can’t make wind turbines without carbon fibres, resin , concrete , steel, digging holes etc.
Measuring the carbon oxides produced during manufacture of a vehicle takes no account of the production sites and processes necessary to produce the glass, plastics, paint, wiring and steel or aluminium .
We have to face it, we are too numerous and we consume too much.
Being a realist and having finite resources Price and Quality are the major drivers; price to purchase and price to run and maintain. I Always try to buy ‘British’ first and European second, whenever possible. This policy is fairly environmentally sound, I find, also where cars are concerned I wouldn’t touch a ‘gas guzzler’ or 4×4 Chelsea Tractor on principle.
It depends!!! Something might be environmentally costly to produce and use, but if it has a long (and repairable) life then this may offset the initial cost.
The first environmental consideration to make is “do I need this purchase at all, can I reduce my environmental impact by not making this purchase”. We seem to be far to keen to carry on in the same old way as the evidence against doing that builds.
I voted none of the above, as I wanted to vote cradle to grave. Remember the shock when the Jeep Wrangler was named greenest car a few years ago. Its fuel consumption was high, but it was a simple design to manufacture & recycle, so over its life, it was greener than an electric or hybrid car. An electric car may seem green, but there are environmental concerns over battery production & disposal. Mazda claims its latest petrol engine is greener, cradle to grave, than an electric car. If that is true, we should not ban petrol engines, but make them cleaner & more efficient instead.
“Cost” is misleading. I try and look at total running cost which is a combination of purchase cost and day-to-day running cost.
Alas I would struggle to believe the carbon or energy used in manufacture as these are too easy to lie about.
I agree with John Hartley, cradle to grave would have been the best option.
Upto date they cannot give what is mixed in the tabacco of a packet of cigarettes, but we know the last detail of the production in a car where the components come worldwide to build?
Unless there are government subsidies to the manufacturer, and assuming the manufacturer is paying their energy bills, then the energy usage involved in making a product is reflected in the asking price of the product!
The last sentence of the last paragraph in the article says it all…
@Rob Exactly. It is what I call necessariness as the first and most important attribute of DfS (design for sustainability) or DfE (desing for the environment). I do my best to educate future and young engineers about thinking and practicing engineering differently with the ultimate goal of sustainable living. Fortunately, they are already aware that BAU (business as usual) is undermining their future.
The Engineer, I would prefer that you do not let such claims unchallenged:
“The remaining 13 per cent opted for ‘none of the above’, including John Hartley who would’ve liked to have seen a ‘cradle to grave’ option.
“Remember the shock when the Jeep Wrangler was named greenest car a few years ago?’ John said. “Its fuel consumption was high, but it was a simple design to manufacture & recycle, so over its life, it was greener than an electric or hybrid car.”
That is impossible. Did Chrysler or does FiatChrysler make such claim about Jeep Wrangler or any Jeep? If so, I would like to see it. The only outfit that made that claim was a marketing company, that openly called its report a non-technical one, which means none of us engineers should take into consideration, as anything else but salesmanship. The outfit itself went to dust. Maybe it had to answer too many technical challenges to great sounding marketing claims, such as Hummer is greener than Prius, which spills over into comedy territory.
Here are some technical reports:
https://www.ucsusa.org/resources/cleaner-cars-cradle-grave
https://www.eea.europa.eu/publications/electric-vehicles-from-life-cycle
Let’s assume that Hummer is greener than Prius, even with a probability of 0.0001%. The reality is that we have to abandon the use of fossil fuels. Since we have to abandon the use of fossil fuels, we need to know what are the readily available, replacement sustainable mobility solutions. Both makers and users need the correct, technical information to choose the sustainable replacement.
Here is another warning from scientists. How many warnings do we need before the point of no return?
https://academic.oup.com/bioscience/advance-article/doi/10.1093/biosci/biz088/5610806