Excellent post. But there you go clouding the issues with facts AGAIN! The EU's definition of climate "SCIENCE" is highly variable and that allows them to use the manipulated data in any way that they see fit as long as it keeps them green!
I am out of exhales for today. More later.
In spite of the EU's attempts to regulate CO2, the EU has still increased it's CO2 output. The entire AGW movement is and has been a sham based on virtual reality that has nothing to do with the real world.
Like it or not, whether man-made weather change is right or wrong, this regulatory change will impact industries based in US and the rest of the world.
EU is the largest economic block in the world now, and very few businesses can afford not to serve the EU market. Therefore, businesses will have to adapt their practices to EU regulations. Once they have done that, it makes very little sense to operate business under 2 sets of rules: EU regulation and US regulation.
Moreover, businesses that have learn to operate successfully under the new EU regulations in addition to the market demands, may achieve efficiency and productivity (business operation and technology in their products) higher than businesses that are adapted to US market conditions alone, and thus emerge more competitive in the long run.
As such, we in US will reap the 'benefit' of the EU regulations as well.
As a small electronic manufacturing and software development business, how exactly can one calculate these values? It is one thing to calculate the CO2 emissions based upon the device's power consumption, but how about the CO2 emissions from each and every item that it took to manufacture the product? For example, semiconductor components are made all over the World from a multitude of vendors... how is the CO2 calculated on this? How about the CO2 emissions from the PCB manufacturer (energy to product the PCBs), or the contract assembler?
What about Software? Does only calculate the CO2 emissions from the number of developers who made the software?
These regulators really need to figure these things out before creating these regulations...
For many Americans generally averse to regulations, carbon-footprint labeling may sound like bit too much.
But some of the methodologies being developed to measure carbon footprints, i.e. Life Cycle Assessment, could be a useful tool for managing the supply chain and devising better recycling startegies.
It's one thing to dismiss everything EU is doing, but it's another to take a closer look at what makes sense to one's business...
With the latest scandal about the manipulated data on global warming, and with the most recent data showing that global warming may not be man made, it's a wonder that the EU is moving forward with these new rules. Perhaps they are unaware of the most recent findings on "climate change". An interesting bit of global warming data is the Arctic ice core data: It shows 3 warming periods, about 125,000 years apart, going back about 500,000 years. So if man is causing global warming (or climate change), how did we do it 450,000 years ago - thousands of years before the industrial revolution began?
When the EU finishes with this carbon label regulation, here is another idea for them to work on: How about if they regulate how many times you and I can exhale each day. After all, all the masses of humans exhaling Co2 every day is surely ruining the earth. Better yet, how about if we limit the number of speaches the EU legislators can make. Think of all the Co2 that would be saved by eliminating all that hot air!
Drones are, in essence, flying autonomous vehicles. Pros and cons surrounding drones today might well foreshadow the debate over the development of self-driving cars. In the context of a strongly regulated aviation industry, "self-flying" drones pose a fresh challenge. How safe is it to fly drones in different environments? Should drones be required for visual line of sight – as are piloted airplanes? Join EE Times' Junko Yoshida as she moderates a panel of drone experts.