Slashdot Mirror

← Back to Stories (view on slashdot.org)

Scientists Calculate Carbon Emissions of Your Sandwich (theguardian.com)

Posted by msmash on from the closer-look dept.

An anonymous reader shares a report: It's a staple of the British diet and a popular choice for a quick and easy lunch. But new research reveals the carbon footprint of the humble sandwich could be fuelling harmful greenhouse emissions. The worst offender is revealed as the ready-made "all-day breakfast" sandwich, crammed with egg, bacon and sausage. Researchers at the University of Manchester carried out the first ever study of the carbon footprint of sandwiches -- both home-made and ready-made. They considered the entire life cycle of sandwiches, including the production of ingredients, packaging, refrigeration and food waste. The team scrutinised 40 different sandwich types, recipes and combinations and found the highest carbon footprints for the sandwiches containing pork meat (bacon, ham or sausages) and also those filled with cheese or prawns. The researchers estimate that a ready-made (and highly calorific) all-day breakfast sandwich generates 1441g of carbon dioxide equivalent -- equal to the emissions created by driving a car for 12 miles (19km).

7 of 258 comments (clear)

  1. wha? by cascadingstylesheet · · Score: 4, Insightful

    Oh good heavens. You people are insane.

    1. Re:wha? by Brett+Buck · · Score: 3, Insightful

      Agreed, this is getting far beyond parody at this point. Just absurd.

    2. Re:wha? by cayenne8 · · Score: 5, Insightful
      Yep...

      They keep getting more and more ridiculous with stuff like this, and then wonder why more less and less people give a shit about global change this or recycle that.

      I mean, really, my breakfast burrito is now on a hit list?

      Fuck off. I didn't care that much before, I really don't give a shit now.

      And I'm not alone....

      --
      Light travels faster than sound. This is why some people appear bright until you hear them speak.........
    3. Re:wha? by JoshuaZ · · Score: 3, Insightful

      I don't see what is insane about it. It makes implicitly a whole bunch of useful points: First, that transport and direct personal electrical consumption aren't the only producers of CO2. Second, that as our economy and society currently stands, the production of CO2 is going to be pretty large no matter what. Third, it gives a good feel for when one is talking about CO2 production just how much one is talking about. Honestly, this is substantially more CO2 than I would have expected for this, and I'm someone who cares a lot about minimizing CO2 production (I don't own a car and use public transit whenever possible and I rarely eat meat in part because of meat's CO2 and methane produciton). This seems useful and interesting.

    4. Re:wha? by Train0987 · · Score: 3, Insightful

      If a damned sandwich is going to put Florida underwater then they are pretty much screwed already. You are undermining your whole cause with nonsense like this. These stories are why fewer and fewer people take you even a little bit seriously.

    5. Re:wha? by ShanghaiBill · · Score: 2, Insightful

      Tell that to the people of Florida, when they are underwater in the not too distant future.

      Silly alarmism makes that more likely to happen, since it jades the public, and reduces the credibilty of scientists.

      Brits should be offended that their tax dollars were spent on something as frivolous as this "study".

  2. Re:Bullshit by Obfuscant · · Score: 3, Insightful

    By 2100, and with 2 meters of global sea rise, and 3 degrees of Celcius increase in temps, one third of Florida will be underwater.

    And by 2050, with 8 meters of sea level rise, and 18 degrees C increase in temps, we're all dead. You see, I can predict catastrophe, too, and my predictions are even catastrophier than yours.

    You said "tell that to the people of Florida". If one third of the people of Florida are underwater in 2100, then they were the morons who didn't know how to move away from the approaching coast and I say good riddance. Darwin Awards to every damn one of them. 2100 is 82 years from now, and 99% of the people living in Florida today will be dead. Anyone who lives there in 2100 will have CHOSEN to live in a place where they know the sea will come wash them away after they drown. They CHOSE to stay.

    By the way, "global sea level rise" is irrelevant when it comes to talking about coastal inundation. It is the local sea level that matters when talking about local effects. For example, while some parts of the planet are possibly seeing serious issues from rising sea levels, Oregon is not. It just happens that the sea level rise from higher water is being offset by coastal rise as the subduction zone pushes the land up. The "sea level rise" that will most impact the Oregon coast is when the cascadia subduction zone earthquake happens, the crustal deformation reduces, and the coast drops a couple of meters or more as a result. But the coast is toast by that time anyway.