4 Matching Annotations
  1. Feb 2023
    1. The most telling real-world results came from the final stock count. For example, no Felix product is more beloved than its best-selling meatballs, yet with customers encouraged to make decisions on climate value, they remained on the shelves, whereas Felix’s new, plant-based meatball alternatives had sold out. Shoppers had learned that the classic dish they had eaten since childhood might not, after all, be the best option for their own children’s future.
      • the results that showed that
      • their Felix brand followers rejected their most popular product, the Felux meatball
      • once the CO2e was show,
      • shows the success of clear labeling of CO2e
      • and the gamification strategy
    2. The results told us Felix’s demographic really wanted to shop for climate-friendly food brands, but found the sustainability information too confusing and – perhaps as a result – believed sustainable grocery shopping to be too expensive.Our strategy was clear: Give shoppers better information on the climate impact of Felix products and, in the process, demonstrate how easy it is to make climate-friendly choices when products are clearly labelled. We called it The Climate Store (Klimatbutiken) – the world’s first grocery shop in which the ‘price’ of food would be based on its carbon footprint.
      • Climate Supermarket
      • Climate store
      • Survey showed consumers were confused by sustainability information
      • consumers were left with the belief that shopping sustainably was too expensive
      • One answer to simplify the complexity that was confusing people was uniform labeling of grocery products with their CO2e and a hard limit (18.9Kg CO2e) that consumer must stay under each week to meet Paris agreement
    3. Customers could only pay with a CO2e currency we printed for the occasion, with every shopper given a ‘budget’ of 18.9 kg CO2e to spend – the maximum personal weekly allowance if we are to meet the goals of the 2030 Paris Agreement.

      = example - gamifying system change in one area - grocery shopping - 18.9 kg was the hard limit - shoppers must keep their purchases under 18.9 kg per week to do their fair share to stay within planetary boundaries, in terms of grocery shopping

  2. Jul 2022
    1. So what can we make of politicians who continue to argue that ‘1.5°C is still alive’? Are they misinformed or are they simply lying?I believe many are in denial about the types of solutions the climate crisis demands. Rather than do the – admittedly – very difficult political work of eking out our supplies of fossil fuels while accelerating a just transition to post-carbon societies, politicians are going all out on technological salvation. This is a new form of climate denial, which involves imagining large-scale carbon dioxide removal that will clean up the carbon pollution that we continue to pump into the atmosphere. While it may seem much safer to stick to the script and say that it is still physically possible to limit warming to no more than 1.5°C, while pointing out that the scale of change demands much more political will, I believe that this can no longer be a credible response to the climate crisis.We have warmed the climate by 1.2°C since pre-industrial periods. If emissions stay flat at current levels, then in around nine years the carbon budget for 1.5°C will be exhausted. And, of course, emissions are not flat – they are surging. 2021 saw the second-largest annual increase ever recorded, driven by the rebound in economic activity after Coronavirus lockdowns. We did not ‘build back better’.The clock has been stuck at five minutes to midnight for decades. Alarms have been continuing to sound. There are only so many times you can hit the snooze button.

      Going all out on technological salvation is a form of climate denialism.

      We are at 1.2 Deg C and emissions have climbed after rebounding after Covid. If they flatline for the next nine years, we will hit 1.5 Deg C.