Carbon-labeling amendment approved

The House Energy and Commerce last night approved an amendment introduced by Rep. Tammy Baldwin (D-WI) to the Waxman-Markey bill that would require the EPA to explore establishing a national program for labeling products with their “carbon content” — that is, labeling products to show much CO2 was emitted in their manufacture and the warming impact of that CO2.

Click here for Rep. Baldwin’s carbon labeling amendment.

The goal of this amendment is to stigmatize the use of energy at a consumer product level and would undoubtedly lead to a host of dubious-to-fraudulent marketing claims about the climate-friendliness of consumer products.

7 thoughts on “Carbon-labeling amendment approved”

  1. What RUBBISH! Is the labeling going to require that EVERY step of the manufacturing process be accounted for?

    Does a toy maker have to account for the CO2 emitted drilling the oil, transporting it, cracking it in the refinery, transporting the plastic pellets, molding the toy, and finally transporting it to the store?

    Who gets hit with the CO2 for the packaging of the toy – the packaging manufacturer or the toy manufacturer?

    Or does Walmart assume reliability for the whole process, since they heat and light the retail store where it’s bought, and use energy to ring up the sale?

    This can’t possibly work and will simply fatten the wallets of lawyers and Greenies who will launch endless “class action” suits against corporations who dare to use energy of any sort while making a product!

  2. Let’s see: vote down the amendment by Ms. Blackburn to require disclosure to customers of cost increases due to the legislation, but approve an amendment to label products with a dubious “carbon footprint” rating (free advertising for the AGW profiteers as the sheep feel self-righteous about the purchase). Heaven forbid that people should have access to all the facts so they could make an informed decision. As Squealer said to the farm animals in Orwell’s ‘Animal Farm’: No one believes more firmly than Comrade Napoleon that all animals are equal. He would be only too happy to let you make decisions for yourselves. But sometimes you might make the wrong decisions, comrades, and then where should we be?”

  3. Do we get a paste on sticker or a tattoo for our forehead? As a carbon lifeform I object to being labeled.

    Maybe carbon equivalent labels, say how many normal people does the carbon contained in a Henry Waxman, Barney Frank or Charlie Rangel equal? They all look like they contain more than their ‘fair share’ of carbon.

    Obviously these nuts hope that no media outlet explains photosynthesis and cellular respiration to the ignorant, and then tells them what would happen if we eliminated all CO2(plant food) from the atmosphere.

  4. Gentlemen,
    I am shopping for my Memorial Day barbecue. I will be buying charcoal, in large amounts. Tax me if you can (ha, ha, ha)!

    I will give up my barbeque when they pry my cold dead hand off the the tongs.

    Ex Fumo Barbequus!

  5. Does this mean I have to have my forhead branded, “toxic substance,” (tarpon beat me to it)? And what about dihidrogen monoxide? I’m mostly that awful substance. And then there is my lawn; does each blade of grass have to have a traceable serial number, with carbon content listed and federally registered?

  6. “…will simply fatten the wallets of lawyers and Greenies…”

    …and give them more control over every aspect of our lives. Yep. That’s the idea.

Comments are closed.