If you've no account register here first time
User Name :
User Email :
Password :

Login Now

Coca-Cola, Carbon Trust Investigate Personal Carbon Allowances

A study by Coca-Cola Co. and The Carbon Trust that investigated how people might respond to personal carbon allowances found while easy-to-understand environmental information changed behavior, consumers were still reluctant to give up certain high-carbon choices in their lifestyles. The group this month published a white paper outlining the study and conclusions.

Carbon Trust and Coca-Cola, with support from environmental consultants SKM Enviros and market research agency RDSI, conducted a four-week consumer trial in Great Britain to study the feasibility of introducing personal carbon allowances — which limits how much carbon a person can emit every day. The study looked at how personal carbon allowances would work in practice, how consumers might respond, and if providing the carbon footprint of products like food and drink through labeling would be valuable.

The study also sought to provide some guidance on the consumer trial’s recommended personal daily carbon allowance known as Carbon GDA or Guideline Daily Amount, which was set at 20 kg of carbon dioxide emissions per person per day.  The guideline was based on emissions that consumers could control, including food and drinks they purchased and consumed, commuting, gas and personal daily travel.

The consumer trial, which involved 24 consumers, found:

  • Participants were enthusiastic about the personal carbon allowance and, on average, reduced their carbon emissions over the four-week period;
  • Reductions were mainly observed in weeks two and three;
  • Emissions increased slightly in week four, which the white paper authors say indicates some participants were finding it hard to sustain long-term behavior change;
  • The greatest emissions reduction was within food, which includes food waste as well as drink, gas and electricity segments;
  • Consumers did reduce their consumption of beer, a drink that has the highest emissions intensity, in the first three weeks. But as the weather warmed in week four, more spirits were consumed, a development that suggests consumer choices are emotionally driven.
  • Consumers were surprised at carbon emissions associated with red meat and cheese;
  • Participants were frustrated at the lack of carbon footprint labeling among retailers and larger brands.

As a result of the consumer trial, the white paper concluded people showed a strong desire to choose a low carbon lifestyle, but many lack sufficient knowledge and understanding to inform their choices. The white paper also concluded that cost savings and health — considered secondary benefits — encouraged those reluctant to compromise purely in terms of carbon.

Practical Guide to Transforming Energy Data into Better Buildings
Sponsored By: Lucid

  
Is Energy-From-Waste Worse Than Coal?
Sponsored By: Covanta Environmental Solutions

  
The Corporate Sustainability Professional's Guide to Better Data Management
Sponsored By: Urjanet

  
Financing Environmental Resiliency and a Low-Carbon Future with Green Bonds
Sponsored By: NSF International

  

4 thoughts on “Coca-Cola, Carbon Trust Investigate Personal Carbon Allowances

  1. A study that involves only 24 people out of a whole country is self-serving at best and worthless.
    If a Carbon GDA were to be presented as MANDATORY, which is the unstated ultimate goal here, I think you would see a lot less enthusiasm for it.

  2. Interesting article. I tried to download the report from the link in the article and from the Coca Cola website but it “could not be found”

    • Hi Volker- we’ve put in a call to Coca-Cola Enterprises to see what’s happening with this link. We’ll fix it as soon as we can.
      Thanks
      Tamar Wilner
      Senior Editor
      Environmental Leader

  3. Please remove my previous comment – it was riddled with grammatical errors!

    @Ira – An interesting and valid point. I think the study would certainly need to be larger, and for a much longer period – 6 months perhaps. This would map behaviour a lot better and may even (to a degree) simulate what it would like for the cap to be ‘mandatory’.

    On a side point, I think that if we’re truly honest with ourselves, this concept should become mandatory if the world is to become more equittable with respect to carbon (and actually, wealth distribution as a product of that).

Leave a Comment