Connect with us

Business

How the EU could combine carbon passports, digital ID, and social credit for every product

Published

9 minute read

From LifeSiteNews

By Didi Rankovic

The European Union is going deep with its plans to introduce digital IDs across industries. Tying a form of digital ID to all products would make the introduction of carbon social credit scores easier to implement.

The concept of “carbon passports,” proposed as a measure to combat climate change, has, for a while now, raised significant concerns regarding civil liberties. These passports are designed to track an individual’s carbon footprint, including travel, energy consumption, and lifestyle choices. While their intention is to encourage environmentally friendly behaviors, they present a substantial threat to personal privacy by enabling continuous monitoring of personal activities.

This intrusion into privacy is not the only issue; carbon passports could potentially lead to discriminatory practices. Those in lower-income brackets, who often have limited access to green alternatives, might find themselves unfairly penalized. This system risks exacerbating social inequalities by disproportionately affecting those less financially equipped to make eco-friendly choices.

Furthermore, carbon passports could restrict movement and personal autonomy. Limiting travel or certain activities based on carbon usage might create a situation where only the wealthy, who can afford carbon offsets or sustainable options, maintain their freedom. This scenario paints a disturbing picture of environmental responsibility being accessible only to those with financial means.

Another concern is the centralization of power in the hands of entities controlling the carbon data. This centralization could lead to a slippery slope where tools designed for climate control evolve into instruments of more oppressive surveillance and control. The balance between addressing environmental concerns and maintaining civil liberties is delicate and crucial.

As part of the push towards carbon passports, a new idea – tying a form of digital ID to all products is also being pushed. It makes the introduction of carbon social credit scores easier to implement.

The European Union is going deep with its plans to introduce digital IDs (in this case, “digital product passports, DDPs”) across industries. DDPs specifically refer to apparel, accessories and electronics.

Brands are now starting to work on integrating the tech – that the European Commission says is necessary for the greater good of citizens, such as meeting “sustainability goals” – the so-called green deal, carbon emissions, all the things – and then there’s access to services and contactless payment.

Critics, on the other hand, say it’s simply yet another way to abuse consumers by harvesting even more of their data. The opponents’ fears appear to rely on solid facts since some of the data collected thanks to the EU’s proposed scheme will profile people based on their behavior, preferences, and even the value of their “resale profile.”

The deadline mentioned is as early as 2026 – that’s how soon brands would have to incorporate digital passports into their products.

And, don’t expect any resistance from brands. Reports are saying that they are working hard to meet the deadline of meeting what is referred to as the European Commission’s “real-world uses for digital identities.”

READ: EU claims digital ID wallet will be voluntary. India said the same before it became mandatory

On the side of the fashion industry, there will be the need to let the EU know – no longer voluntarily – about how they manufacture items, organize their supply chains, and the materials used.

Well, don’t expect brands to only implement the tech to make the EU feel good about itself. “Brands currently testing the technology are figuring out ways for it to collect customer data and add perks beyond the point of purchase,” writes Vogue Business.

Already trying to go a step above linking physical items with digital identity – as is the case with QR and NFC – and meet EU goals are the likes of Balenciaga, RealReal, and Boss, the article mentions.

And unlike that “old tech” that was there mostly to facilitate and protect transactions, manufacturers and customers, Mojito CEO Raakhee Miller had this interesting take on what’s referred to as the upcoming, “physical first” method: it “not only enhances the product’s value,” said Miller, “but also deepens consumer engagement.”

So, how deeply does the EU – and brands following its diktat – want to “engage” customers, other than people handing over money for a product they buy? This is where what’s basically data harvesting and mining comes into play, even if it is explained in fancy (and unsurprisingly, equally meaningless) terms like “phygital goods” and “metaverse approach.”

But, so to speak, the proof is in the word salad: the point is to have services and use cases “more anchored in client needs.” And clearly, to know what those needs are, one must first better know the client. Meaning, beyond what the client is currently comfortable sharing with multinational conglomerates.

Can’t we all just buy what we want, and move along? Please?

Not so fast, the EU says, and people like Vestiaire Collective VP of Partnerships Laura Escure explain it by no less than what might seem to many as basically questioning the customers’ cognitive abilities.

“The barriers around Web3 were not helping consumers to think thoroughly about luxury,” Escure is quoted.

READ: World Bank president advocates global digital ID scheme at tech summit

And did you know that if you dish out a lot of money on a luxury product, there’s a whole “story” behind it – beside the one in your bank statement? That’s how Aura Blockchain Consortium CEO Romain Carrere wants you to think about the situation.

“We believe in a future where every customer feels connected to the story behind their products, and the DPP is the key to unlocking that narrative. It’s not just a digital passport, it’s a journey of trust and empowerment for every consumer,” said Carrere.

But mostly, it would seem, it’s a narrative. There to empower itself, and those in positions of power, rather than the customer.

Back in EU’s bureaucracy, the digital product passport proposals first saw the light of day in the spring of 2022, naturally, as “sustainability” enhancing mechanisms related to products, and about a year later, this was officially presented on the European Commission website as a way to share key information about a product.

The information would be shared “across all the relevant economic actors,” a press release said in May 2023. Things are happening in this space under the Proposal for Ecodesign for Sustainable Products Regulation (ESPR).

The EU claims its goals are to boost what it calls circular economy, material and energy efficiency, and extend product lifetimes, as well as the way waste from those products is eventually handled.

The bloc also declares some grand ambitions here – like creating new business opportunities – “based on improved data access,” though.

And the EU is not above putting down consumers either, while at once working to elevate the level of data scrounged off of them. The DDP scheme, the Commission says, will “help consumers in making sustainable choices.”

And, for now – “allow authorities to verify compliance with legal obligations.”

Reprinted with permission from Reclaim The Net.

Todayville is a digital media and technology company. We profile unique stories and events in our community. Register and promote your community event for free.

Follow Author

Business

Our energy policies have made us more vulnerable to Trump’s tariffs

Published on

From the Fraser Institute

By Elmira Aliakbari and Jason Clemens

As Donald Trump, who will be sworn in as president on Monday, threatens to impose tariffs on Canadian exports including oil and natural gas, the calls from some Canadian politicians and analysts for greater energy trade diversification grow louder. However, these calls highlight a hard truth—Canada has repeatedly foregone opportunities to reduce our dependence on the United States by cancelling already approved pipelines and failing to approve new pipeline and LNG projects that could have increased our access to global markets.

The U.S. is not just Canada’s largest energy customer—it’s nearly our only customer. In 2023, 97 per cent of crude oil exports and virtually all natural gas exports were sent south of the border. This dependence on the U.S. for exports leaves Canadian producers and the Canadian economy exposed to policy shifts in Washington and even state capitals.

Consider Energy East, a pipeline proposed by TransCanada (now TC Energy) to transport oil from Alberta and Saskatchewan to refineries and export terminals in Atlantic Canada. The pipeline would have reduced Atlantic Canada’s reliance on imported oil and opened export markets for Canadian oil to Europe.

However, in 2017 the Trudeau government introduced new criteria for evaluating and approving major pipeline projects, and for the first time assessments included not only the greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions from constructing the pipeline but also emissions from producing and using the oil it would transport. Later that year, TransCanada suspended its application for the project, effectively cancelling it. The CEO of TransCanada blamed “changed circumstances” but many observers recognized it was a combination of the new regulations and opposition from Quebec, particularly the City of Montreal. Consequently, the refineries in Atlantic Canada continue to rely on imported oil.

A year earlier in 2016, the Trudeau government cancelled the already-approved Northern Gateway pipeline, which would have connected Alberta oil production with the west coast and created significant export opportunities to Asian markets.

Canada is even more dependent on the U.S. for natural gas exports than oil exports. In 2023, Canada exported approximately 84 billion cubic metres of natural gas—all to the U.S.—via 39 pipelines, again leaving producers in Canada vulnerable to U.S. policy changes.

Meanwhile, Canada currently has no operational infrastructure for exporting liquified natural gas (LNG). While LNG Canada, the country’s first LNG export terminal, is expected to become operational this year in British Columbia, it’s long overdue.

Indeed, several energy companies have cancelled or delayed high-profile LNG projects in Canada due largely to onerous regulations that make approvals uncertain or even unlikely, including the $36 billion Pacific NorthWest LNG project in 2017, the $9 billion Énergie Saguenay LNG project in 2020Kitimat LNG in 2021 and East Coast Canada LNG in 2023.

This all adds up to a missed opportunity, as global demand for LNG increases. If governments in Canada allowed or even facilitated more development of LNG facilities, Canadian companies could supply high-demand regions such as Asia and Europe. Indeed, during Europe’s 2022 energy crisis, Germany and several other countries turned to Canada for reliable LNG supply, but the Trudeau government rejected the requests.

The contrast with the U.S. is stark. Since 2011, 18 LNG export facilities have been proposed in Canada but only one—LNG Canada Phase 1—is nearing completion, more than 12 years after it was announced. Meanwhile, as of January 2025, the U.S. has built eight LNG export terminals and approved 20 more, securing its position as a global LNG leader.

Years of inaction and regulatory roadblocks have left Canadian energy producers overly dependent on a single trading partner and vulnerable to shifting U.S. policies. The looming threat of tariffs should be a wake-up call. To secure its energy future, Canada must address the regulatory barriers that have long hindered progress and prioritize the development of infrastructure to connect our energy resources to global markets.

Elmira Aliakbari

Director, Natural Resource Studies, Fraser Institute

Jason Clemens

Executive Vice President, Fraser Institute
Continue Reading

Business

FDA bans commonly used food dye

Published on

FDA Finally Bans Cancer-Linked Red No. 3 Food Dye

By Nicolas Hulscher, MPH

The Food and Drug Administration (FDA) announced on Wednesday that it is banning the use of Red No. 3, a synthetic dye responsible for the vibrant cherry red color in foods and beverages, citing its association with cancer in animal studies:

The dye is still used in thousands of foods, including candy, cereals, cherries in fruit cocktails and strawberry-flavored milkshakes, according to the Center for Science in the Public Interest, a food safety advocacy group that petitioned the agency in 2022 to end its use.

Food manufacturers will have until Jan. 15, 2027 to reformulate their products. Companies that make ingested drugs, such as dietary supplements, will get an additional year.

This ban was LONG overdue. Unfortunately, the other synthetic food dyes that have also been linked to serious deleterious health effects still remain on the market. A few months ago, I summarized the harm linked to synthetic food dyes — outdated FDA standards expose Americans to toxic food dyes linked to cancer, neurobehavioral issues, and other health risks, demanding urgent regulatory action:

Synthetic Food Dyes: A Half-Century of Harm

·
November 25, 2024
Synthetic Food Dyes: A Half-Century of Harm
 

by Nicolas Hulscher, MPH

 

Read full story

Batada et al found that nearly half (43.2%) of grocery store products contained artificial food colorings (AFCs), with Red 40 (29.8%), Blue 1 (24.2%), Yellow 5 (20.5%), and Yellow 6 (19.5%) being the most common. Candies (96.3%), fruit-flavored snacks (94%), and drink mixes/powders (89.7%) had the highest prevalence of AFCs, while produce contained none.

Oliveira et al summarized the deleterious health effects linked to synthetic food colorings in children: neurobehavioral disordersallergic reactionscarcinogenic and mutagenic potentialgastrointestinal and respiratory issuestoxicitydevelopmental and growth delays, and behavioral changes.

Sultana et al illustrated the specific health hazards associated with particular synthetic food dyes:

Miller et al conducted a systematic review of the potential neurobehavioral impacts (activity and attention) of food dye consumption. They included 27 clinical trials of children exposed to synthetic food dyes and found that 16 of 25 challenge studies (64%) demonstrated evidence of a positive association, with 13 studies (52%) reporting statistically significant findings. The authors concluded, “Current evidence from studies in humans, largely from controlled exposure studies in children, supports a relationship between food dye exposure and adverse behavioral outcomes in children, both with and without pre-existing behavioral disorders.” They also noted that:

“Animal toxicology studies were used by FDA as the basis for regulatory risk assessments of food dyes [25]. All current dye registrations were made between 1969 and 1986 based on studies performed 35 to 50 years ago. These studies were not designed to assess neurobehavioral endpoints. Dye registration was accompanied by derivation of an “acceptable daily intake” (ADI) based on these studies. FDA ADIs have not been updated since original dye registration, although there have been several reviews of specific effects since then, the latest in 2011.”

Synthetic food dyes, widely prevalent in U.S. products and lacking nutritional value, rely on outdated FDA approvals despite evidence of widespread toxicity, carcinogenicity, and adverse neurobehavioral effects, strongly warranting urgent regulatory action to protect public health.

While the FDA has finally made a decision that will benefit public health, they are still allowing the dangerous COVID-19 genetic injections to be administered to all individuals aged 6 months and older despite far exceeding criteria for a Class I recall. The immediate removal of unsafe and ineffective gene therapy injections should be the first priority before anything other product bans.

Nicolas Hulscher, MPH

Epidemiologist and Foundation Administrator, McCullough Foundation

www.mcculloughfnd.org

Please consider following the McCullough Foundation and Nicolas Hulscher on X (formerly Twitter) for further content.

Continue Reading

Trending

X