Climate craziness of the week: Apparently, crime DOES pay when it comes to carbon footprints

From the “Who freaking cares about the carbon footprint of criminals?” department comes this inane study that only a fully invested warmist could give a rats posterior about. With statements like this: “to ignore these carbon emissions risks crime prevention strategies being unsustainable.” one wonders if the author of the study really understands that the real goal of crime prevention strategies is to reduce crime, not a carbon footprint or to be “sustainable”. Sheesh, I’m beginning to think that this comment yesterday on the “weather whiplash” story might might merit after all:

How about a policy of regular drug testing of professors? If they drug test air traffic controllers why not the people who teach our children? – Bob Osborn 2017/03/29 at 10:01 am

The carbon footprint of crime has fallen, study finds

A study led by an Engineering Doctorate student at the University of Surrey has found that the carbon footprint of crime over the last 20 years has fallen.

The study, published in the British Journal of Criminology, applied estimates of the carbon footprint of criminal offences to police-recorded crime and self-reported victimisation survey data, to estimate the carbon footprint of crime in England and Wales between 1995 and 2015.

The study was conducted by Helen Skudder at the University of Surrey and supported by the Engineering and Physical Sciences Research Council (EPSRC), the Home Office, and Secured by Design Police Crime Prevention Initiatives Limited.

The carbon footprint of acquisitive and violent crime was estimated at around 7 million tonnes CO2e in 1995, falling to below 3 million tonnes CO2e by 2015. This represents a substantial carbon drop of 62% and a total cumulative reduction of 54 million tonnes CO2e over this period.

Research lead Helen Skudder said: “All public bodies, organisations and businesses must reduce their carbon emissions wherever possible, so to ignore these carbon emissions risks crime prevention strategies being unsustainable. Our study has shown that the carbon emissions have fallen further than the rate of crime, with a 48% carbon drop observed alongside a 30% crime drop.”

Focusing on areas that resulted in the majority of emissions reductions may offer the best potential opportunities for further decreasing the carbon footprint in the future. These include burglary and vehicle offences, which reduce the need to replace stolen or damaged items, which was found to contribute substantially to the footprint.

The relationship between the drop in crime and drop in carbon footprint is complex. A 30% drop in police-recorded crime between 1995 and 2015 resulted in a 48% reduction of carbon emissions. This clearly demonstrates that there is not a straightforward relationship between the number of offences and the resulting carbon footprint. This study adds to previous research on the carbon footprint of crime, and the results presented in the paper are an important contribution towards a growing connection between crime prevention and sustainability agendas.


The full study can be accessed online here:

0 0 votes
Article Rating
Newest Most Voted
Inline Feedbacks
View all comments
Steve Fraser
March 30, 2017 10:47 am

Crimes do, or crime does…pick one.

Reply to  Steve Fraser
March 31, 2017 3:01 am

The ultimate conclusion of this line of thinking is to introduce the death penalty from traffic misdemeanours. thus reducing the “carbon footprint” of the person concerned.

average joe
Reply to  Greg
March 31, 2017 1:04 pm

There is one step further still. Let’s use our nuclear arsenals of the USA and Russia to eliminate all life on earth, thereby reducing carbon footprints to zero. Hah!

Lance Wallace
March 30, 2017 10:58 am

Are we sure this research did not originally appear in the Onion?

Rhoda R
Reply to  Lance Wallace
March 30, 2017 2:56 pm

Bingo. It is totally inane. Did the UK spend taxpayer money on it?

Reply to  Rhoda R
March 31, 2017 2:56 am

It’s funding looking for a study to justify itself.

March 30, 2017 11:00 am

The only proper response to this sort of climate craziness is… AEUHHH????

March 30, 2017 11:12 am

The study is about petty crime. It ignores the big criminals.

Cross-border organized crime is big business, worth about $2.1 trillion per year, according to the United Nations Office on Drugs and Crime (UNDOC), equivalent to 3.5 percent of world GDP in 2009. That’s more than six times the world’s development aid budget for that year, and equivalent to about 7 percent of global exports of merchandise. link

How about the billions of dollars lost to white collar crime? While we’re at it, how come no bankers went to jail for their part in bringing the country to its knees in 2008? link

Reply to  commieBob
March 30, 2017 12:15 pm

Because bankers were following the law as it was written.
You want to blame someone for the crisis of 2008, then blame the politicians that passed the laws that made such activities necessary.

Reply to  MarkW
March 30, 2017 12:22 pm

The Federal Reserve regulates the banking industry, not the bankers.

Reply to  MarkW
March 30, 2017 1:16 pm

OK, congress wrote the laws that the regulators enforced that forced the bankers to do what they did.

Reply to  MarkW
March 30, 2017 7:50 pm

I used to think that too. After reading up on the subject I found they were not following the law. They were only interested in profit by any means.
(Please note that I favor capitalism and want all businesses to make an honest profit.) Yes, Government was derelict, but bankers definitely broke the law and hurt the country tremendously.

Reply to  MarkW
March 30, 2017 7:54 pm

Actually a LOT of laws were violated by the bankers. The biggest offender in potential jail time was definitely the whole robo signing fiasco where they hired people to forge signatures and claim things that were blatantly untrue for the courts. Each violation could have resulted in several years of prison for them, but, to the best of my knowledge, not a single one was ever even tried in court.

Or how about when they packaged loans and moved them without moving the original documents which was in blatant violation of the law. That was fairly disastrous for a lot of people because no one knew who owned the loan and the owners of the property had no way of contacting the person who owned their loan if there was a problem.

Then there was the LIBOR scandal which despite not being a 2008 scandal was definitely going on back then too. Someone was arrested for that but he was one of the lowest pegs on the totem pole involved.

The blatant and illegal racism showed by Countrywide before BOA bought that particular poisoned pill. Poor BOA had to pay a lot of money for that particular anti-discrimination lawsuit.

While this one wasn’t exactly illegal here in the US,and while Goldman Sachs didn’t actually commit the crime, they did however allow Greek politicians to illegally circumvent EU laws and built a debt many times what they were supposed to. It was an intentional thing and Goldman Sachs pocketed a lot of money for helping them bribe their voters with future generations money. All of that is off the top of my head and only counts things that were going on back then.

I do blame politicians too, mainly Bill Clinton for pushing so hard for low income housing, and the Republican Congress for repealing the Glass Steagall Act. Bankers and politicians have always been close, but it seems to be getting worse as the decades go by.

Reply to  MarkW
March 31, 2017 3:06 am

The Federal Reserve regulates the banking industry, not the bankers.

and who the hell do you imagine the Federal Reserve IS ??? It is a cartel of BANKS.

It is no more “federal” than Federal Express. Check your sources, do a search for “who owns the Fed”.

Reply to  MarkW
March 31, 2017 1:51 pm


The Federal Reserve is a GSE. Congress created it and a president signed that monstrous bill. The Federal Reserve, effectively, nationalized the banks. Banks don’t own the Fed, the government wants you to believe it, though.

Who is the first beneficiary of central bank created inflation? Why that’d be the government that created their monopoly. Is it any wonder that a self-contradictory law, like the one created the Fed, is useless for any real economy. The real economy is not the purpose for which GSEs like the Fed were made.

True enough, there were bankers who willingly sold themselves (and us) out, for they were true Scientific Socialism ™ believers. Others were given an offer they couldn’t refuse. See what happens if you try to create a private bank today.

Roger Knights
Reply to  commieBob
March 30, 2017 2:13 pm

how come no bankers went to jail for their part in bringing the country to its knees in 2008?

Too big to jail. (A phrase I invented and posted on the Seeking Alpha site back in 2008.)

Carbon BIgfoot
Reply to  Roger Knights
March 31, 2017 8:04 am
Smart Rock
Reply to  commieBob
March 30, 2017 2:27 pm

Bankers went to jail in Iceland. Apparently, Icelanders have a conscience about stuff like that. Or perhaps, they just elect politicians with consciences.

Novel idea.

Reply to  Smart Rock
March 30, 2017 4:35 pm

The Icelandic financial crisis went to a whole different level than it did in America. The government guaranteed deposits in the Icelandic banks and when they speculated and failed, foreign investors were able to stick the country with it. If there was ever an example of privatized gains and socialized losses, Iceland would be it. Everyone felt the pain and it is a tribute to the Icelanders, descended from the Vikings as they are, that there weren’t lynchings.

Reply to  Smart Rock
March 31, 2017 3:07 am

Iceland is still small enough that they can control their bureaucracy.

Reply to  commieBob
March 31, 2017 1:53 pm

I have another question for those who think banks own the Fed. How many bureaucrats have gone to jail for doing their jobs, even though they injured/killed millions? /rhetorical

March 30, 2017 11:12 am

And crime in carbon credits rises. I think I see the real hockeystick here

March 30, 2017 11:15 am

Clearly, they were high on drugs when they came up with the idea

Phillip Bratby
March 30, 2017 11:16 am

And us taxpayers are paying for this drivel.

March 30, 2017 11:18 am

Funniest part……crime is highest…where people believe this

Mark from the Midwest
March 30, 2017 11:21 am

But before doing this shouldn’t someone be studying the carbon footprint of studying a carbon footprint?

Tom in Florida
March 30, 2017 11:23 am

To be sure scamming people out of money on line is more carbon friendly that drilling a hole in the side of a bank, blowing the safe and high tailing out of town in a getaway car.

Reply to  Tom in Florida
March 31, 2017 3:12 am

Not so sure, can you provide your data please. Please include assessments of how many emails were sent to find the dupe who fell for the scam and the carbon footprint of sending an email.

Neil Jordan
March 30, 2017 11:27 am

Green crime could become even greener with green bullets:

March 30, 2017 11:31 am

EXCLUSIVE/ European Union countries exploited loopholes in United Nations forestry rules to pocket carbon credits worth €600 million and the equivalent of global-warming emissions from 114 million cars. Not petty crime after all.

A market based on the non-delivery of a non-good. What could go wrong with that?

J Mac
March 30, 2017 11:39 am

This story illustrates perfectly that ‘carbon emissions/footprint’ concerns are not based in reality.

March 30, 2017 12:11 pm

Meanwhile in the real world there are real problems and real people suffering.

March 30, 2017 12:14 pm

Does this mean that criminals are now walking to work?

March 30, 2017 12:28 pm

Carbon footprint (whatever that means) is down.
Crime is down.
Ergo the carbon footprint of crime is down.

Penguins can’t fly.
I can’t fly.
Ergo I am a penguin.


March 30, 2017 12:36 pm

More garbage funded by British taxpayers.

“Secured by Design Police Crime Prevention Initiatives Limited.” This is an organisation that is supposed to be working on reducing crime by ‘designing in’ crime prevention measures to new homes, factories, building sites etc, not dabbling in carbon footprint fantasies.

Peta from Cumbria - now Newark
March 30, 2017 12:54 pm

In the UK, seemingly, there are about 10,000 roadside cameras. No-one is supposed to know where they are, few people do and their purpose is to read number plates and hence check tax & insurance status of the vehicles going by.

Many are in fact so-called ‘safety cameras’ or speed cameras that will fine you for exceeding whatever limit is in force.
Now then, some little while ago I read that it cost £200 per day to ‘service’ each one of these ‘safety’ cameras so lets assume its similar for the tax cameras of which there are at least 10,000.
That money came from somewhere, tax money, that was generated as profit from using ‘resources’ in some manner or other.
Keep it simple and say that £200 would buy 2 tonnes of coal, ish and that would emit about 4 tonnes of CO2 – roughly?

So, 10,000 cameras, at 4 tonnes per day over 20 years gives just shy of 300 million tonnes of CO2

Then we read this garbage.
The world has gone quite mad

March 30, 2017 1:16 pm

Closing the East Anglia CRU would reduce the carbon footprint. What they’ve done to data is a crime.

March 30, 2017 1:22 pm

When does the carbon footprint go down in Chicago’s crime? I guess I just spawned another study. Geez

Roger Knights
March 30, 2017 2:17 pm

These include burglary and vehicle offences, which reduce the need to replace stolen or damaged items, which was found to contribute substantially to the footprint.

But the crooks sell the stolen items to fences, who resell them to the market, so there’s no net increase in new production to those items, and thus no carbon footprint effect, except very marginally (from poor people buying used luxury items at a discount).

March 30, 2017 2:46 pm

Criminally stupid. In an earlier time people of this mindset often “worked for peace” The stupid is so blatant that it raises your blood pressure reading about it. When I was in school a professor exclaimed that “we are teaching you to think” it was a rare approach then and apparently things have gotten worse.

Steve Borodin
March 30, 2017 2:58 pm

I predict the next Nobel Peace Prize will be given to a bunch of Surrey criminals. Well done lads. Keep the good work up.

Nigel S
Reply to  Steve Borodin
March 31, 2017 2:24 pm

They’ll steal Michael Mann’s Nobel Prize.

March 30, 2017 3:37 pm

So “The carbon footprint of crime has fallen”?
Well then, shouldn’t Government be doing all it can to encourage it?
Officially that is, not just through the efforts of individual office-holders.
And the EPA should start jailing those evil honest people, straight away!

March 30, 2017 4:31 pm

This is why climate research standards for research funded by tax payer dollars need to be established. The fact that this study comes out of someone’s tax dollars makes IT a crime!

March 30, 2017 5:00 pm

Yes, we need to petition our politicians to pass laws mandating that all criminal activity be carried out with-in walking distance of their residence, unless they have a bicycle (stolen, of course) . Or, Mandate that they carpool to reduce emissions during their ‘outings’. And if it’s cyber crime, the laptop MUST be powered by renewable energy, solar, wind or stationary bicycle attached to a generator.

We all can do more to save the planet.

(I do hope I don’t need the /sarc tag for this. But I do worry that a politician may see this and think ‘Hmmm, there may be something here’)

Reply to  MikeH
March 31, 2017 9:18 am

There could be a whole new slew of punishments added on to the existing crimes for the failure to be carbon neutral during commission of said crimes.
Rob a liquor store: 10 yrs.
use a gun: add 5 more yrs.
use an old clunker auto as the get away vehicle: add 5 more yrs.

Reply to  MikeH
March 31, 2017 10:10 am

Sort of like making it a crime to own a gun. Like criminals care if they are breaking another law.

March 30, 2017 5:57 pm

Absolute insanity. These people have elevated Navel – gazing to Sheaksperian heights of, er, ‘Brillance’.

March 30, 2017 5:58 pm

What a load of hooey! Seriously?

March 30, 2017 10:52 pm

“A study led by an Engineering Doctorate student at the University of Surrey has found that the carbon footprint of crime over the last 20 years has fallen.”

How can that be? In planet GIGO exhaling is a crime.

March 31, 2017 3:24 am

“The carbon footprint of acquisitive and violent crime was estimated at around 7 million tonnes CO2e in 1995, falling to below 3 million tonnes CO2e by 2015”. Is that because armed robbers are now using Priuses?
Honestly this makes me ashamed to be an alumnus of this institution

Mickey Reno
March 31, 2017 5:44 am

I offer this set of rules for all criminals to follow in order to show your concern for the environment.

– All getaway cars must have a fleet average 38.4 mpg.

– NO idling when waiting outside the bank for the inside men to return with the loot. Better yet, a full electric vehicle is highly recommended.

– All money bands wrapping the stolen cash should be placed in paper recycling bins.

– Firing a gun burns fossil fuels. Consider carrying a crossbow as your primary weapon.

– Illegal immigration, already noted for it’s high utilization of multi-passenger conveyance, could be even better. Stuff a few more people in the back of those trucks.

– Stop smoking illegal substances. This burning releases toxic CO2 into the atmosphere. Instead, cultivate a large mass of marijuana plants, and then bury them.

– add your own suggestions to this crucial topic

Reply to  Mickey Reno
March 31, 2017 10:16 am

How does the energy of cranking that crossbow compare to the fossil fuels used in firing a gun? Not to mention the effort needed to carry the heavier crossbow?

Mumbles McGuirck
March 31, 2017 6:05 am

Does anyone remember the movie “THX 1138”? The authorities call off the pursuit of THX when it exceeds the funds allocated to it. So maybe we will pursue criminals only as long as our carbon footprint allows. Prius cars for cops!

Samuel C Cogar
March 31, 2017 6:25 am

Excerpted from article:

Sheesh, I’m beginning to think that this comment yesterday on the “weather whiplash” story might merit after all:

How about a policy of regular drug testing of professors? If they drug test air traffic controllers why not the people who teach our children? – Bob Osborn 2017/03/29 at 10:01 am

That comment has merit, …….. but it sure as ell doesn’t have the support or backing of academic/educational administrators or employees.

The State of West Virginia passed a Law that mandates all High School students who want to participate in/on Team Sports must pass a “drug test” ……. but any and all attempts to pass a Law that mandates “drug testing” of school Administrators, Teachers, Coaches or any other school employee has failed to be implemented by the State Legislature.

HA, you can have a “drug using” Teacher selling “drugs” to the students …… but you can have the students who are buying those “drugs” playing team sports.

Gary Pearse
March 31, 2017 10:57 am

Again, the onward feminization of Climate science continues as it gets more hysterical. Where are Trenberth, Schmidt, Steig, Gergis? Whatever happened to Lewandowski? Cowan and Way, Marcotte, Turney? Unsustainable crime policing takes its place along with the issue of the gender of ice and the climate music of snapping shrimp!

Am I the only one chronicling this paradigm shift in climate science as it slips into chaos and a more caring, nurturing, sustainable, arty regimen. Are we to endure more subsidized climate stage plays, musicals, diversity, T circles, quilting bees? Is homogenizarion of the temperature record now going to go through estrogenization and tropical menopausal hotspots?

Derek Colman
March 31, 2017 4:35 pm

It really warms my heart to know that our criminals are doing their bit to save the planet. It just goes to show that nobody is all bad.

March 31, 2017 4:48 pm

…Well, the only thing I can think of to say is… “N.U.T.S.” !.

April 1, 2017 2:11 pm

How about drug testing for doctoral candidates?

April 1, 2017 5:13 pm

this study clearly shows some one closed too many mental institutions

April 2, 2017 4:07 pm

Almost understandable for arsonist, not so much when it’s just Big Frankie’s body getting re-purposed in the cut-priced supermarket hot-dogs.

%d bloggers like this: