>proper

doing Scotsman-like lifting when the point was that these things are not considered, or are "externalities"

not sure how that invalidates Algernon's point. These things should be considered, and are in a lot of LCAs.

  >should be considered, and are

Not as much as they should be, was his point. Saying something is not proper is the No True Scotsman fallacy.

Just define "proper" to mean "it is an analysis that considers the whole supply chain and would pass academic peer review".

Those would count toward “Scope 3” emissions, right?

https://www.mckinsey.com/featured-insights/mckinsey-explaine...