What are the chances?
Soft drink makers have filed a lawsuit against the New York Mayor’s upcoming ban on large sugary drinks.
Meanwhile, a new report estimates the cost of saving endangered wildlife at $76 billion a year, a fifth of what the world spends on – that’s right – large sugary drinks.
The soft drinks comparison is headline-grabbing, but the residents of New York are unlikely to start donating their Pepsi savings to conservation charities. Even a global soft drinks tax would be unlikely to raise the required cash. In any case, as the researchers point out, the $76 billion figure is a rough estimate of the value of natural capital, not an itemised bill.
It made me wonder though. Could helping the environment be made as simple as changing your shopping list? Of course, you can buy sustainably-sourced products, or favour companies which are known for their green initiatives. But in the end, saving the planet is often about buying less, not more.
I recently encountered Sainsbury’s Million Meal Appeal, which encourages shoppers to add an item to their basket to donate to the hungry. It’s a great idea, making charity simple, visible and direct.
Something tells me that carbon offsets at the checkout wouldn’t work quite so well. And many would argue that the environment shouldn’t be seen as an optional “add-on”. Still, it couldn’t hurt to make shoppers more aware of their impacts.
Earlier this year, Tesco abandoned plans to label all of its products with their carbon footprints, saying that the task had proved too difficult and expensive. A solution is desperately needed, because a carbon loyalty card could make environmental impacts visible and reward eco-friendly behaviour.
Who knows – it might even help shoppers cut down on the fizzy drinks.