Now, The Data.

We've just launched Carbonostics 2.0 and now we're looking to the months and years ahead. Truly, the possibilities are endless. It's almost overwhelming to consider the different possibilities that we could be facing by the end of 2010. From strict legislation requiring specific labels detailing environmental impact on every consumer good on the shelves (imagine...everything from shampoo to spaghetti sauce to kleenex to ice cream!) all the way down the scale to wouldn't-it-be-nice if you measured and labeled your products, please.

What's a small metrics company to do? We can't put all our eggs in one basket and prepare only for mandatory labeling (and what does that mean exactly anyway?), but at the same time, we can't ignore the very real possibility that even if mandatory labeling doesn't happen this year, it's likely to happen soon...in France, then Europe, then the UK, then other countries (Sweden & Japan have already got voluntary measures in place), then...wait for it...perhaps even the USA.

We've taken the position that lifecycle screening is the most practical and affordable way for companies to measure and reduce their environmental impact. In other words, while full lifecycle assessments are interesting for researchers and academics, they are not a practical solution to measure the impacts of the tens of thousands of consumer products lining our supermarket shelves. And while LCA researchers spend a lot of time and resources measuring the impact of every gram of ingredient, packaging, energy and more, is it really going to make a huge difference to the decisions you make if your product generates 4.125kg of CO2e vs 4.325kg? It seems to me that the most important things to know about those two numbers are that (1) your product generates between 4kg and 4.5kg of CO2e, (2) the first number took 9 months and cost €65,000 to come up with, and (3) the second number took 3 days and cost €1,000.

It's possible, even probable, that in the years ahead environmental impact data will become standardized to the same point that we now have with nutritional data. i.e. 1kg of tomatoes has pretty much the same nutritional content in every country's national nutritional database. But, until then, we have to offer data that is credible, verified, and reliable for companies to do their analyses with. If not...if we insist that every company does a full and complete LCA on every product, then this effort will fail miserably. If, on the other hand, we provide only 1 data point for every category of ingredients, we will also fail. It's unlikely, to even the most novice analyst, that 1kg of tomatoes grown in a greenhouse in Denmark has the same environmental impact as 1kg of tomatoes grown in the full sun in southern Spain.

Our answer is to find the best possible middle ground and do it in the best possible way. We find data that is credible, verified and reliable, that measures environmental impact for as many different variances of the material as possible (greenhouse tomatoes vs full-sun tomatoes vs organic tomatoes), and then we give users a choice of selecting the best fit for their recipe. In fact, we give them even more than that. We give them the option of choosing every different variance and seeing what changes in their overall environmental impact. Does using greenhouse tomatoes grown locally really benefit the environment, or should I use full-sun tomatoes that I have to ship in from Spain? How does one know unless one measures?

We've gathered the best available environmental impact data for food ingredients, packaging materials, transport, storage, energy, consumer use, and now disposal methods. And now we're going to look even more closely at each and every data point to decide whether, in the big picture, and compared to other data from other sources, it makes sense and is clearly documented. At the same time we're going to expand our data from just CO2e to additional environmental impact data - such as water quality, biodiversity, and eutrophication. The challenge to gather quality data will continue for a lot longer, and we know we are only as good as the secondary data we can load into Carbonostics...however, we're sure that this approach strikes the perfect balance between accurate gram-by-gram details, and affordable and practical measurement solutions that businesses can use to make decisions and reduce their environmental impact.

And we hope you agree. Email me with your ideas about environmental impact databases and solutions - I'd be very interested in hearing the different opinions and approaches that people are trying - sara.pax@bluehorseassociates.com .

Onward and upward.

Carbonostics 2.0

Upgrades and additional features abound in this new version of Carbonostics. Not only is it smarter and more complete with a really sophisticated and innovative end-of-life module, it is friendlier and even easier to use.

Carbonostics now includes:

- End-of-life calculation
o Includes all food and packaging materials
o Disposal data allocated by material and region

- Consumer waste calculation
o Allocated by region

- Updated math model
o Aligned to French agency ADEME’s BPX30-323 standard in anticipation of the ecolabelling legislation
o Consistent with international standards: PAS2050, GHG Protocol and ISO

- Emissions from multiple layers of packaging
o Now contains secondary and tertiary packaging data in addition to primary packaging data

- Waste Reuse & Sequestration options
o Now includes options to offset waste and emissions with reuse and sequestration inputs

- New Supply Chain graph
o Data is grouped by supply chain step, as well as nutrition and raw material categories.

- Re-organized Baseline/Scenario detail screen
o More information
o User-friendly

You can see a sample analysis for a Ready-Meal Lasagna here: https://www.carbonostics.com//cena.aspx?demo=1&k=-2147477449.

Enjoy!