it's the type of shoe too.

Yesterday's story about a can of Coca Cola having a smaller carbon footprint than one of Innocent's smoothies made me think about an attempt we made last year to estimate the size of EiB's footprint. 

The idea was that we would use several of the various calculators available and compare the results and publish them in a feature. In the end it got too complicated trying to work out how much of the shared resources at our various corporate offices we would hypothecate to the magazine (and this site)which are two of hundreds of services and publications consuming differing proportions of those resources. it wasn't that it was impossible, but it would have been very tedious to read about.

And ultimately only part of the picture, as the Coke/Innocent comparison reminded me. If EiB had a disporoportionate carbon footprint to that of other publications but its function was (as it is) to help organisations reduce their emissions, shouldn't that count in the balance? (This is similar to the arguments about Al Gore flying a lot to publicise an Inconvenient Truth.) 

But how do you give those potential benefits? And then how would you convert them into a carbon weighting?

Not that I am attributing differing moral values to cans of sticky toothrot and bottles of blended fruit pulp and juices with witty messages on the side*, oh no.

 (My favourite was on the label of I forget which blend that read "separation may occur...but mummy still loves daddy.")