Slashdot is powered by your submissions, so send in your scoop

 


Forgot your password?
Close
typodupeerror
×
Science

Scientists Calculate Carbon Emissions of Your Sandwich (theguardian.com) 258

Posted by msmash 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).
This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.

Scientists Calculate Carbon Emissions of Your Sandwich More

Scientists Calculate Carbon Emissions of Your Sandwich

Comments Filter:

  • wha? (Score:5, Insightful)

    by cascadingstylesheet ( 140919 ) on Thursday January 25, 2018 @04:41PM (#56002413) Journal
    Oh good heavens. You people are insane.

    • Re: (Score:3, Insightful)

      by Brett Buck ( 811747 )

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

      • At least Miss Mash isn't spamming more pro-government net "neuterality" FUD or more anti-Russian FUD.

      • Re:wha? (Score:5, Insightful)

        by cayenne8 ( 626475 ) on Thursday January 25, 2018 @05:02PM (#56002647) Homepage Journal
        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....

        • Re: (Score:3)

          by AmiMoJo ( 196126 )

          This is just the headline to get funding. It's like those "ignoble" scientific studies that are actually quite valuable once you get past the headline.

          They did a study on the carbon impact of various foods. To get some PR and funding they did this little stunt.

          As for your sandwich... It's probably one of the first foods that will start using artificial ingredients. Well, butter began being replaced long ago, but soon meat and probably cheese will be too.

    • Re: (Score:3, Insightful)

      by JoshuaZ ( 1134087 )
      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 someo

      • It makes implicitly a whole bunch of useful points: First, that transport and direct personal electrical consumption aren't the only producers of CO2.

        D'oh. Thank god for scientific research funding to tell us this.

        Second, that as our economy and society currently stands, the production of CO2 is going to be pretty large no matter what.

        Which is what makes meaningless virtue signaling like the Paris Accord a waste of time and money.

        Honestly, this is substantially more CO2 than I would have expected for this,

        Do you think the next research into this would get funded if the result were "there's nothing to see here, there is no problem from eating sandwiches, move along"? It is kinda obvious that they're going to come out with a startling result.

    • I know Slashdot needs some clickbait to keep the advertisers happy but really. This is so obviously a troll that anyone posting heartfelt thoughts below is really wasting their time.

    • You people are insane.

      No . . . they are prepping for their lawsuit against Subway for ruining the planet.

      We definitely need more automation to solve Global Warming. More robots means less human workers eating sandwiches, and ruining the planet even more.

      What to do with all those former human workers who can't or refuse to be retrained . . . ?

      Soylent Green.

    • Re: (Score:2)

      by Chas ( 5144 )

      Seriously. All these people can do is scream "We're fucked and it's YOUR fault!" and come up with ever crazier "examples".

      They keep telling us our ONLY two options are global warming or an ice age.

      Which is patent bullshit.

      We ALREADY have the tech to crack and/or sequester carbon. It isn't "simple", and takes an assload of power, but we can do it.

      But nope! "WE"RE FUCK AND IT'S YOUR FAULT!"

      I'm done with this shit. These people can go eat a dick.

  • Good grief (Score:5, Funny)

    by Notabadguy ( 961343 ) on Thursday January 25, 2018 @04:49PM (#56002499)

    This should be titled from the "We-Are-Voluntarily-Giving-Up-Our-Credibility" department.

    Living things on this planet breathe. They exhale. Sometimes we humans kill and eat them.

    If all those animals were left alive, breathing out CO2, farting methane, eating up all the good grass and taking the jobs of other animals whose consumption have fallen out of popularity, their carbon footprint would be even worse.

    Save the environment - stop eating plants that absorb CO2 and eat more meat.

    • Re:Good grief (Score:5, Informative)

      by DamnOregonian ( 963763 ) on Thursday January 25, 2018 @04:59PM (#56002611)

      Living things on this planet breathe. They exhale. Sometimes we humans kill and eat them.

      This is a carbon-neutral process.

      If all those animals were left alive, breathing out CO2, farting methane, eating up all the good grass and taking the jobs of other animals whose consumption have fallen out of popularity, their carbon footprint would be even worse.

      This belies a complete lack of understanding of the carbon cycle :/

      Save the environment - stop eating plants that absorb CO2 and eat more meat.

      Whether you eat plants, or animals, you're merely eating a link in the carbon cycle.

      This article (and study) isn't making the insane claim that the meat in the sandwich, or the bread in the sandwich is a carbon-costly ingredient... They're measuring the cost of transportation, refrigeration, etc, etc - the things that require non-cycle sourced carbon to produce the final product.
      Your ignorance makes this problem intractable. I hope you understand that some day.

      • Re:Good grief (Score:4, Funny)

        by freeze128 ( 544774 ) on Thursday January 25, 2018 @06:13PM (#56003363)
        "Whether you eat plants, or animals, you're merely eating a link in the carbon cycle."
        Well, if I'm eating links, they might as well be pork sausage links.

      • Living things on this planet breathe. They exhale. Sometimes we humans kill and eat them.

        This is a carbon-neutral process.

        Huh? Animals produce a lot more carbon dioxide than they consume. How is this "carbon neutral"? Or has "carbon neutral" been defined so that it doesn't mean you have to stop doing anything, just all those other people who are doing other things?

        This belies a complete lack of understanding of the carbon cycle :/

        Oh, I see. You are applying the entire carbon cycle to animal respiration and coming up with "neutral".

        Here's a shocker. The entire planet is carbon neutral under that definition. There will never be more carbon than what is here today, or was here yesterday. It ta

        • Huh? Animals produce a lot more carbon dioxide than they consume. How is this "carbon neutral"? Or has "carbon neutral" been defined so that it doesn't mean you have to stop doing anything, just all those other people who are doing other things?

          This is quite literally impossible.
          All carbon in your body, exhaled, came via the cycle from the first step in it- the air, whether via a plant that used photosynthesis to break it apart, or an animal that you ate, who ate that plant. You can't possible "produce" more carbon that you took in, unless we're going to involve alchemy or high-energy particle physics into the equation. You can alter the balance of the cycle, between gaseous and various solid forms, but at the end of the day, that cow you just at

          • You can't possible "produce" more carbon that you took in,

            The issue is not carbon, it is carbon dioxide. Yes, I ABSOLUTELY produce more carbon dioxide than I consume. I am converting carbon that has been converted into bio-carbon (carbohydrate, protein, fats) by plants back into the dangerous carbon dioxide. The only way to stop that process is to stop eating or stop breathing.

            Yes, I am. As one should...

            Not when you are evaluating the costs of one step in the cycle. Otherwise, let's be honest and include the entire existence of carbon on the planet, which we can say truly IS neutral no mat

            • The issue is not carbon, it is carbon dioxide. Yes, I ABSOLUTELY produce more carbon dioxide than I consume.

              Only in the short term. The carbon you consume was carbon dioxide very recently. A plant turned it into edible carbon for you. You're undoing that process and taking a cut of the energy it provided in the form of more complex organic molecules.

              I am converting carbon that has been converted into bio-carbon (carbohydrate, protein, fats) by plants back into the dangerous carbon dioxide.

              Yes, you are.

              The only way to stop that process is to stop eating or stop breathing.

              Utter bollocks. You stop eating and stop breathing, and you'll be CO2 again within a year, unless of course we either bury you miles underground, or fire you at the stars at faster than escape velocity.
              This isn't a complicated concept. There is a total c

      • You are correct about the scientific fact that producing meat requires out of cycle CO2.

        You are also correct that the OP was ignorant of this fact.

        You are absolutely not correct that OP's ignorance makes the problem intractable. It's intractable for completely other reasons.

        Chief among those reasons is that many (not all) people strongly prefer to eat meat. And given that (for better or worse) people have free will, they will enact that choice both individually through their dietary choices and collectively

        • You are absolutely not correct that OP's ignorance makes the problem intractable. It's intractable for completely other reasons.

          Fair enough. I should have said, "Your refusal to allow your ignorance to be corrected makes this problem intractable."
          You can't bring about a societal shift without force if you can't even educate your people.

    • Eating Human-raised Animals (Score:5, Informative)

      by DrYak ( 748999 ) on Thursday January 25, 2018 @05:52PM (#56003175) Homepage

      Living things on this planet breathe. They exhale. Sometimes we humans kill and eat them.
      If all those animals were left alive, breathing out CO2, farting methane, eating up all the good grass and taking the jobs of other animals whose consumption have fallen out of popularity, their carbon footprint would be even worse.

      This xkcd [xkcd.com] is relevant.

      The actual animals that normally live around on the planet are actually an insignificant small speck, compared to the impact... ...of all the specially human-created species that we raise on purpose to feed ourselves.
      These are not animal that normal roam this planet.
      This are animal specially raised by the human agriculture for the the specific purpose of answering the demand.

      There is currently that much CO2, that much methane farting, and that much depletion of normal flora for the sole purpose of providing grazing, because we need to answer the meet eating habits (mostly of the developed world).
      We want (as a specie) to eat meat, that's why we raise an insane amount of cattle.

      Save the environment - stop eating plants that absorb CO2 and eat more meat.

      If we actually massively stopped eating meat (e.g.: if the developed world slowed down on meat and started eating food containing a higher mix of vegetable like the rest of the world), we would actually be needing to raise *a lot less* animals, and thus a lot less impact on the environment.

      Your whole argument sounds like : "Stop using trains, there are cars out there anyway". Huh no. We build cars to fulfill the needs of those who want cars and refuse to take public transportation. And the same we raise animal on insane scale just to fulfill the needs of those who insist on eating animal.

      • ... because we need to answer the meet eating habits (mostly of the developed world).

        I think we need more "meet eating habits", not less. Imagine, if all those people who wasted so much time and energy meeting to come up with the Paris Accords were just eaten as soon as they walked in the door, how much better things would be.

        And every corporation should invest in "meet eating", just to cut down on the wasted time and energy of endless meetings. How many people would go to the next design review meeting if they knew they were "on the agenda", so to speak? They aren't committed to the "ham

    • Re: (Score:2)

      by pz ( 113803 )

      From the really quite naive perspective, we should be cutting down all the trees.

      No, no, wait, bear with me for a minute.

      Oil, whence the anthropogenic increase in atmospheric CO2, is primarily long-ago dead plants. Coal, too. We've done the equivalent of exhuming these ancient growths and re-converting the long chain hydrocarbons of their decay into gaseous form.

      What is the reverse of this process? Trees. Trees convert atmospheric CO2 into wood that can be cut down and buried. And grown again sequester

  • What the carbon emissions of these bullshit "scientific" studies are?

    Perhaps we should collect all these "scientists", melt them down and use their juices as a low cost biofuel. At least then they will be contributing.

  • The carbon footprint per calorie needs to be calculated, so one can determine how best to fill oneself up while minimizing carbon footprint. I imagine 'eat food that would otherwise be discarded' would be at the top of the efficiency list, above food choice. What I REALLY wonder is why more research isn't being done into finding a way to control livestock micribiota, to eliminate their methane emissions. The research would also be useful for treating a wide variety of human gastrointestinal disorders and di

  • 12 miles is about the round-trip distance to a place I like getting breakfast, so I can fuck the environment on both fronts.

    The University of Manchester is a prestigious organisation but I really would prefer them to spend their time doing something useful.

  • The carbon foot print of the Military Industrial Complex. Odds are, they're the BIGGEST contributor to climate change. So you get them to slim down, god knows they need to go on a diet, you can keep your egg, bacon and sausage sandwich.

  • Die humans! (Score:4, Informative)

    by Train0987 ( 1059246 ) on Thursday January 25, 2018 @05:02PM (#56002655)

    Humans must be destroyed in order to save humanity. New at 11.

  • Wrapping it in plastic? Aluminum foil?

    Seriously, the Carbon impact of my sandwich?

    Let's just be honest, simply LIVING emits carbon, so are they not really saying people will have to die? They want us to go back to the amount of carbon we emitted in the 1700's, which is going to pretty much require that a large percentage of us die to save the planet.

    Well the problem is that I'm not willing to do that and THEY are apparently not wiling to do so either, so counting the CO2 emissions of a sandwich is pret

    • Let's just be honest, simply LIVING emits carbon, so are they not really saying people will have to die? They want us to go back to the amount of carbon we emitted in the 1700's, which is going to pretty much require that a large percentage of us die to save the planet.

      There is an alternate solution. We inject chlorophyll under everyone's skin; they can absorb carbon and would need to eat a lot less.

      #greenchicksarehot

  • Carbon footprint of 1000 private jets...

    More than 1,000 aircraft have landed at a quartet of regional airports near Davos... the attendees will be addressing the major threat of climate change....

    8-)

  • Sandwiches are bad for the environment. Thank the baby jebus I prefer Tacos!
  • So... calculation with these values, I would have to eat an All-Day breakfast sandwich every day for the next 17 years to equal the difference in carbon footprint between my car and one that is more environmentally friendly. So if I keep my car and just don't eat the sandwich, I can achieve balance at a fraction of the cost and even cut some calories in the process. Thanks Slashdot!

  • The study also recommends reducing or omitting certain ingredients that have a higher carbon footprint, like lettuce, tomato, cheese and meat.

    If I can't eat those ingredients in a sandwich then I'm just having two slices of bread.

    What do these sandal and socks wearing hippies eat? No lettuce, tomatoes, cheese or meat? Does this include other vegetables? Or, other dairy products? I also wonder if this study included only cold sandwiches or warm ones, like a hamburger.

    One last question, if I need to calculate my carbon footprint before I even eat then I'm not thinking of anything else, so do these people that think this hard of their carbon foo

  • "How to feel bad about EVERYTHING!"

    It will cleanse the world of everyone who doesn't worship The Lulz.

  • I wonder if the carbon footprint just happen to fairly well correlate with the price. i.e. might I find that a $5 sandwich was responsible for roughly twice as much CO2 in the atmosphere as a $2.50 one?

    Cases where it doesn't correlate, might have some interesting things going on.

  • The problem with this sort of thing is they typically make erroneous assumptions that people do the worst choices such as buying grain fed confinement pork. If you change that to pasture raised pork that isn't fed commercial feeds, e.g., grains, and is slaughtered and butchered on-farm then all of a sudden the pork goes from having a carbon footprint to actually sequestering carbon. But, that doesn't make as big a splash in the media so they don't make good choices.

  • Equals 3.68 * 10^15 grams of CO2 emitted if every single human being eats one sandwich a day:

    Total content of CO2 in atmosphere is 8.52^10^17 grams which corresponds to 400 parts per million

    That means that every year humanity adds 1 part per million to the CO2 concentration by merely eating a sandwich.

    For comparison current rate of growth of CO2 concentration is 2 parts per million.

    Let's stop eating sandwiches and we can reduce CO2 concentration twice /sarcasm

  • Scientists today announced findings of decades-long research: The Human Race is unsustainable, and urged world leaders to draft agreements to phase out human life as soon as possible. In related news, PETA and Vegans are delighted with the news and fully endorse the validity of the study.

  • The article doesn't make mention of whether or not those numbers are really per-sandwich, or if they take say 2 slices of bread and count the carbon for the whole loaf in the same way that the RIAA lawsuits like to assume each pirated song from an album justifies the full cost of the album so that 12 songs = $300 rather than $25 or whatever..

  • Its informative to see the full CO2 footprint of foods, because some foods have a very large environmental cost and its not always apparent which ones are the worst offenders. For example, if you bike to work because you care about your CO2 footprint, from this study it looks like you could almost lower it by riding in a car instead if those extra calories come from high impact foods. Or, perhaps lower it quite a bit by giving up some stuff you don't even care about that much but the impact to the envir

Slashdot Top Deals

He has not acquired a fortune; the fortune has acquired him. -- Bion

Close