Climate alarmists are now attacking…..sandwiches

From the UNIVERSITY OF MANCHESTER and the “I’m going to have a sandwich for lunch, just for spite” department comes this exercise in climate stupidity equating sandwich types to miles driven in a car. So for extra spite, I’m going to drive my car to the nearest Subway sandwich shop today and order a foot-long, with double meat. Like this one.

For the rest of you that embrace this guilt building exercise, have a Tofu on Rye.

When will they learn you can’t motivate people by trying to make them feel guilty about everyday foods? I do predict though, at some point, just like they require for cars, California will require foods top have a “global warming impact” sticker in the not too distant future as a way of taxing those “carbon footprints”.

Is your sandwich bad for the environment?

Do you take a packed lunch to work or buy a sandwich from the shop? The carbon footprint of your sandwich could be having a major impact on greenhouse gas emissions according to new research.

Researchers at The University of Manchester have carried out the first ever study looking at the carbon footprint of sandwiches, both home-made and pre-packaged. They considered the whole life cycle of sandwiches, including the production of ingredients, sandwiches and their packaging, as well as food waste discarded at home and elsewhere in the supply chain.

Altogether the team looked at 40 different sandwich types, recipes and combinations. They found the highest carbon footprints for the sandwiches with pork meat (bacon, ham or sausages) and those containing cheese or prawns.

Of the recipes considered, the most carbon-intensive variety is a ready-made ‘all-day breakfast’ sandwich which includes egg, bacon and sausage.

The researchers estimate that this type of sandwich generates 1441 grams of carbon dioxide equivalent (CO2 eq.). This is equivalent to CO2 emissions from driving a car for 12 miles.

The sandwich with the lowest carbon emission equivalent is a simple home-made favourite, ham and cheese. The study also found that making your own sandwiches at home could reduce carbon emissions by a half compared to ready-made equivalents.

According to the British Sandwich Association (BSA) more than 11.5 billion sandwiches are consumed each year in the UK alone. Around half of those are made at home and the other half are bought over the counter in shops, supermarkets and service stations around the country. That means the UK spends nearly £8 billion a year on the breaded snack, at an average cost of £2 per snack.

Professor Adisa Azapagic, from the School of Chemical Engineering and Analytical Sciences, said:

‘Given that sandwiches are a staple of the British diet as well as their significant market share in the food sector, it is important to understand the contribution from this sector to the emissions of greenhouse gases.

‘For example, consuming 11.5 billion sandwiches annually in the UK generates, on average, 9.5 million tonnes of CO2 eq., equivalent to the annual use of 8.6 million cars.’

The results show the largest contributor to a sandwich’s carbon footprint is the agricultural production and processing of their ingredients. Depending on the type, this can account for around 37%-67% of CO2 eq. for ready-made sandwiches.

Keeping sandwiches chilled in supermarkets and shops also contributes to their carbon footprint. This can account for up to a quarter of their greenhouse gas emission equivalent. Then there is the packaging material which comes in at up to 8.5 % and, finally, transporting materials and refrigerating sandwiches themselves adds a further 4%.

The study concludes that the carbon footprint of the snacks could be reduced by as much as 50 per cent if a combination of changes were made to the recipes, packaging and waste disposal. The researchers also suggest extending sell-by and use-by dates to reduce waste.

Professor Azapagic, who also heads up the Sustainable Industrial Systems research group, added: ‘We need to change the labelling of food to increase the use-by date as these are usually quite conservative. Commercial sandwiches undergo rigorous shelf-life testing and are normally safe for consumption beyond the use-by date stated on the label.’

The BSA also estimate that extending the shelf life of sandwiches by relaxing such dates would help save at least 2000 tonnes of sandwich waste annually.

The study also recommends reducing or omitting certain ingredients that have a higher carbon footprint, like lettuce, tomato, cheese and meat. Reducing ingredients, such as cheese and meat, would also reduce the amount of calories eaten, contributing towards healthier lifestyles.

###

Reference: The paper, Understanding the impact on climate change of convenience food: Carbon footprint of sandwiches by Namy Espinoza-Orias, Adisa Azapagic; Sustainable Industrial Systems, School of Chemical Engineering and Analytical Sciences, The University of Manchester was published in the Journal of Sustainable Production and Consumption https://doi.org/10.1016/j.spc.2017.12.002

0 0 votes
Article Rating
231 Comments
Oldest
Newest Most Voted
Inline Feedbacks
View all comments
ResourceGuy
January 25, 2018 10:27 am

Simon says jump…again.

Trebla
Reply to  ResourceGuy
January 25, 2018 10:48 am

How much CO2 was generated in gathering all the information for this study, meetings, travel, calculations, publication, etc., a study which will have zero impact on sandwich making and consumption? Whatever it was, the net effect is an increase in CO2 emissions. Please stop doing these kinds of studies. Go back and play with your models. Don’t try to worry me about what might happen 100 years hence. I’m busy worrying about what might happen 100 minutes hence.

Tom Gelsthorpe
Reply to  Trebla
January 25, 2018 11:54 am

Bloviating and awfulizing are heavy emitters of CO2, driving us ever closer to doomsday. Better slap strict controls on lip-flapping.

MarkW
Reply to  Trebla
January 25, 2018 12:09 pm

In other news, environmentalists are proposing a CO2 tax on meat.
https://www.atr.org/enviros-push-meat-tax

kenji
Reply to  Trebla
January 25, 2018 12:16 pm

So. The Warmists are capable of breaking down a detailed climate-cost for a ham sandwich … but cannot do the same calculation for a shiny new Tesla? Or average wind tower made from cheap Chinese steel? Or solar farm supplied by cheaply dumped Chinese solar panels ?
Ham sandwiches … yep. EXACTLY the mentality of the GLOBALIST warmists.

rocketscientist
Reply to  Trebla
January 25, 2018 1:12 pm

Kenji, climate alarmists cannot break down the cost of a ham sandwich anymore accuracy than they can climate change.
Nobody is going to even bother to check their asinine analyses.
Utter waste of resources to conduct this study.

Sara
Reply to  Trebla
January 25, 2018 3:23 pm

Mark W, thank you for the link to that ATR article.

Greg
Reply to  Trebla
January 25, 2018 11:20 pm

“The study also recommends reducing or omitting certain ingredients that have a higher carbon footprint, like lettuce, tomato, cheese and meat. ”
FFS, what is left to go into a sandwich? They have discovered that if you put nothing in a sandwich it has a smaller “carbon footprint”. WOW, Nobel peace prize is waiting.

Next they suggest removing the butter and half the bread. That would drastically improve things. Then they suggest starving to death, which is what they are really trying to get us to do.

Steve Keppel-Jones
Reply to  Trebla
January 29, 2018 9:44 am

Only removing half the bread, Greg? That’s optimistic of you 🙂

jbird
Reply to  ResourceGuy
January 25, 2018 11:09 am

Hmm. Climate Nihilism: Everything in life must be rejected because it all causes global warming. When these extremes are reached, you know the end of the meme is near.

ResourceGuy
Reply to  jbird
January 25, 2018 11:12 am

“End is near” like dessert maybe?

Tom Gelsthorpe
Reply to  jbird
January 25, 2018 11:23 am

Just stop eating, because eating supports life, and life is bad. That goes for everything, even busy bees. They give off CO2, too. Bees should be ashamed of themselves. They already wear the hair shirt (all that fuzz) but they don’t self-flaggelate enough.
The beatings will continue until morale improves.

Bryan A
Reply to  ResourceGuy
January 25, 2018 12:24 pm

Of the recipes considered, the most carbon-intensive variety is a ready-made ‘all-day breakfast’ sandwich which includes egg, bacon and sausage.
The researchers estimate that this type of sandwich generates 1441 grams of carbon dioxide equivalent (CO2 eq.). This is equivalent to CO2 emissions from driving a car for 12 miles.

In this case the 1/4 pound breakfast sandwhich (1/8 Kilo) 125 grams produces 11 times the ammount of CO2 than the sandwhich weighs?
Next time I’m getting the 2fer

The study also recommends reducing or omitting certain ingredients that have a higher carbon footprint, like lettuce, tomato, cheese and meat. Reducing ingredients, such as cheese and meat, would also reduce the amount of calories eaten, contributing towards healthier lifestyles.

So basically a sandwhich should be Bread and Mayo

Hivemind
Reply to  Bryan A
January 25, 2018 5:19 pm

Only if the bread was baked at home from ingredients you harvested yourself, ground yourself and baked yourself using wood cut from trees growing outside your back door. Chicken Little anyone?
I always said the sky is falling to these guys.

Monna M
Reply to  Bryan A
January 25, 2018 6:30 pm

Mayo contains eggs, so no mayo – just dry bread.

Greg
Reply to  Bryan A
January 25, 2018 11:25 pm

well at least these noble researchers can sleep well at night knowing that they done their bit to destroy capitalism and save the planet.
Good work guys, we need more like you !
/sarc

Crispin in Waterloo but really in Ulaanbaatar
Reply to  Bryan A
January 26, 2018 6:13 am

Dry bread? Drying bread takes energy. So does baking.
How about wheat sprouts instead?

Reply to  ResourceGuy
January 25, 2018 6:17 pm

How many carbon-spewing sandwiches = 1 private jet flying to Davos?

Alan Tomalty
Reply to  lftpm
January 25, 2018 7:04 pm

Try telling our prisoners that their diet has to change because of carbon restrictions. There will be prison riots all over the land.

higley7
Reply to  ResourceGuy
January 25, 2018 8:03 pm

They need to give everybody breath-rate monitors so everybody can constantly remember to moderate their breathing rate, thus decreasing CO2 emissions. Keeping out oxygen levels down will decrease our metabolic rate and save the planet. Passing out from low oxygen is even a plus as while passed out one does not generate much CO2.

Tom O
Reply to  ResourceGuy
January 26, 2018 7:34 am

Did I misread this? Did they just say that the least carbon intensive sandwich was a home made ham and cheese sandwich and then turn around and say ham was the most carbon intensive meat, and that meat and cheese should be eliminated to lower carbon intensiveness? Is there some sort of logic here that I missed?

michael hart
Reply to  Tom O
January 26, 2018 8:43 am

I read it the same way as you, Tom O.
But The First law of global warming alarmism states that your arguments don’t need to be self consistent.
The Second law of global warming alarmism states that your arguments don’t need to be consistent with other global warming alarmists.
Consistent with the Second law, The Third law of global warming alarmism states that blaming something new on global warming makes it more likely to be published (this way all possible events ultimately get to be covered by global warming).
And I almost forgot. The ‘Zeroth’ law of global warming states, of course, that “It is worse than we thought”.

Latitude
January 25, 2018 10:28 am

you know……these schools have run out of material….maybe we do know it all now

Sara
Reply to  Latitude
January 25, 2018 10:31 am

Latitude, I have cappocollo or prosciutto with apple-smoked cheddar. Which would you prefer?

Latitude
Reply to  Sara
January 25, 2018 10:38 am

dang!….I love both!!!

Latitude
Reply to  Sara
January 25, 2018 11:21 am

You planted the seed….I just made a ham sandwich for lunch……….

MarkW
Reply to  Sara
January 25, 2018 12:10 pm

My wife made chicken salad sandwiches for my lunch.
And no, I’m not sharing.

Greg
Reply to  Latitude
January 25, 2018 11:28 pm

Well , they’ve all had free sandwiches for the last year: it all went onto accounts are research materials.
who says there’s not such thing as a free lunch ?

Sara
January 25, 2018 10:29 am

I wondered just how long it would be until we had to start protecting sandwiches from these maniacs. Now I know.
#Sandiwchesmattermost!
These people really have nothing useful to do when they start something like this. What’s next? The cornbread I make to go with Tuscan bean soup? Am I going to be told to NOT make a healthy bowl of soup with chard or kale included using ingredients that are good for me because these layabouts in white coats have no real purpose in life, other than annoying the people whose taxes go into their grant moneys?
If they want my sandwiches, they can just molon labe! I doubt they’ll last five seconds, never mind five minutes.
I’m telling Mom, too.

Sheri
Reply to  Sara
January 25, 2018 10:50 am

Telling Mom!!!!! You’re really serious about this, aren’t you? 🙂

Sara
Reply to  Sara
January 25, 2018 11:31 am

Damn straight, I am!

Bryan A
Reply to  Sara
January 25, 2018 12:26 pm

watch out for that tuscan bean soup it can be a methane producer

Bob Burban
Reply to  Sara
January 25, 2018 3:05 pm

… “watch out for that tuscan bean soup it can be a methane producer” … try adding some caraway seed to keep it down to a dull roar.

Sara
Reply to  Sara
January 25, 2018 3:27 pm

This bunch of slackers in white lab coats have me on a roll. Next time, I’m making 15-bean soup with ham (ham bone if I can find one) and whopping big chunks of cornbread.
They are nutz. They serve no useful purpose. I will see if I can find a junkyard that will take them for a nominal fee.

James Bull
Reply to  Sara
January 26, 2018 12:29 am

I tell people I’m telling my teddy bear about the bad things they did to me, he sits on my bedside table and I’ve had him since I was a baby.
As for their research…..
Of the recipes considered, the most carbon-intensive variety is a ready-made ‘all-day breakfast’ sandwich which includes egg, bacon and sausage.
Is one of my favourites and this ain’t going to stop me having one when I want.
James Bull

Bryan A
Reply to  Sara
January 26, 2018 10:12 am

7 Bean (Hobo) Stew
1 can white beans
1 can pork and beans
1 can kidney beans
1 can pinto beans
1 can black beans
1 can baked beans
1 can butter beans
2 cups favorite BBQ sauce
10 sausages (around 2 pounds) Polish, Italian (mild or spicy to your liking) Hot Link??
1 lb browned ground beef
6 strips of bacon browned and crumbled
1 onion chopped
Using a large slow cooker
Drain 1/2 of the liquid from the cans and pour remainder into the crock pot
Lightly Brown sausages (not thoroughly cooked), slice and place in pot
Cook bacon, crumble and place in pot
saute diced onion in Bacon Grease, add ground beef and brown/crumble beef
Add beef/onion mixture and all liquid contents to pot
Stir contants
Cover and cook over medium for 6 hours
Serve over rice
Can accompany with Biscuits or Cornbread if desired

Bryan A
Reply to  Sara
January 26, 2018 10:07 pm

It is actually really good, though I did forget to mention adding the BBQ sauce prior to cooking
And 1/2 tsp liquid smoke

Marque2
Reply to  Sara
January 25, 2018 12:43 pm

Get rid of the soup as well. Those beans are racist!

James Bull
Reply to  Marque2
January 26, 2018 12:30 am

Are they “has beans”
James Bull

StephenP
January 25, 2018 10:36 am

They are suggesting that we omit lettuce, tomato, cheese and meat from sandwiches. What have we left to put in? Tuna? Otherwise we are left with just a bread stick, and aren’t carbohydrates meant to be bad for us as they upset the insulin balance?
And if we don’t eat sandwiches maybe we will have to stick to tofu and French fries.

pameladragon
Reply to  StephenP
January 25, 2018 10:57 am

No tuna! Remember, eating tuna results in dead dolphins, you don’t want that on your conscience, not only a bigger carbon footprint but killing lovable, brilliant cetaceans too!
PMK

F. Leghorn
Reply to  pameladragon
January 25, 2018 11:34 am

They don’t kill dolphins anymore. That is why the tuna is so tasteless now

pameladragon
Reply to  F. Leghorn
January 25, 2018 11:38 am

They say they don’t kill dolphins anymore, but can they back up that claim? I’ll bet they sell the delicious dolphin meat to sushi bars now…that would account for the lack of flavor in the canned tuna….

Marque2
Reply to  pameladragon
January 25, 2018 12:48 pm

Almost all tuna in the USA came from San Diego. All the Tuna companies were headquartered there and the fleet was mostly Italian fisherman in Little Italy. Then came the dolphin free laws – which made fishing more dangerous for fisherman and caused insurance to go through the roof. They all shit down and now we get our “dolphin free” tuna from Indonesia – where I can be pretty sure that no one is really paying attention to whether dolphins are really dying – they just provide the logo.

MarkW
Reply to  pameladragon
January 25, 2018 2:34 pm

“They all shit down”
That was pretty shitty for the fishermen.

Bryan A
Reply to  StephenP
January 25, 2018 12:27 pm

Last time I checked, Tuna was meat. Just Bread and Mayo perhaps pickels too

sy computing
Reply to  StephenP
January 25, 2018 2:11 pm

No worries, it appears bacon is environmentally friendly…
Vegetarian and “Healthy” Diets Could Be More Harmful to the Environment
Carnegie Mellon Study Finds Eating Lettuce Is More Than Three Times Worse in Greenhouse Gas Emissions Than Eating Bacon
https://www.cmu.edu/news/stories/archives/2015/december/diet-and-environment.html

Bryan A
Reply to  sy computing
January 25, 2018 2:13 pm

GO BACON

Bryan A
Reply to  sy computing
January 25, 2018 2:14 pm

Bacon wrapped Bacon sandwhich on Bacon Bread with Bacon Hananero sauce
YUMMMY

Sara
Reply to  sy computing
January 25, 2018 3:30 pm

Bacon – hickory smoked, pan-fried to a nice, crisp finish, added to the bottom, middle and top layers of a classic bacon-lettuce-and tomato sammich on dark pumpernickel (hard to find around here) or 12-grain thick-sliced pan bread… or just put it all on a plate, fork it and down it goes.

Richard of NZ
Reply to  sy computing
January 25, 2018 8:15 pm

But what about my BLT’s? A nearly balanced meal between 2 slices of bread and tastes good as well.

Bryan A
Reply to  sy computing
January 26, 2018 10:15 am

You will have to settle for
Bacon
Bacon
and
Bacon
Nix the BLT and have a BBB

AllyKat
Reply to  StephenP
January 25, 2018 2:36 pm

No tuna if you are a woman of reproductive age. The mercury!

Hivemind
Reply to  StephenP
January 25, 2018 5:23 pm

No french fries. They’re just carbohydrates coated in vegetable oil. You have to eat the vegetable oil neat now.

AndyG55
January 25, 2018 10:36 am

The number of people who will pay any attention to actually doing this will be 0.00000000001% (+/-)
I bet even they won’t.

Marque2
Reply to  AndyG55
January 25, 2018 1:03 pm

Until the doogooders enact laws. As an example in California there is a proposal to put waiters behind bars for 6 months for the crime of giving a straw to a customer – even those eco paper straws.

tom s
Reply to  Marque2
January 25, 2018 2:31 pm

California sucks in so many ways. Thank GOD I don’t and never will, live there.

Greg
Reply to  Marque2
January 25, 2018 11:34 pm

Ironically banning straws was an attempt to counter the claim that California sucks !

ResourceGuy
January 25, 2018 10:37 am

You may all substitute large helpings of beans for sandwiches….until further notice.

AndyG55
Reply to  ResourceGuy
January 25, 2018 10:44 am

just use the stairwell, not the lift. !!

Bryan A
Reply to  AndyG55
January 25, 2018 2:18 pm

Man who eat beans before church sit in own pew

Trebla
Reply to  ResourceGuy
January 25, 2018 10:54 am

These folks just gave me a clue about the origin of the old saying for someone who isn’t playing with a full deck: they are “one sandwitch short of a picnic”.

James Bull
Reply to  Trebla
January 26, 2018 12:39 am

I’ve posted The Goons version of this before so here’s a different one for today

James Bull

arthur4563
January 25, 2018 10:37 am

Notice how the view of CO2 is always negative in these studies. If you want to locate the most important self and life sustaining material – it’s CO2. Trying to convince folks to change their lifestyle
and providing illiterate arguments like “one sandwich is worth 12 miles of gas powered travel” is just plain incompetent. Any conceivable reductions of CO2 WRT sandwiches is totally insignificant, as is this pointless study.

Richard G
January 25, 2018 10:39 am

I’m going to make a special trip to Subway today. I’ll take the full size SUV and leave the compact car at home.

ResourceGuy
January 25, 2018 10:40 am

The sandwich tax could generate several more miles of high speed rail line for Jerry Brown.

Reply to  ResourceGuy
January 25, 2018 10:53 am

Shhhhhh! They are everywhere.

Mumbles McGuirck
January 25, 2018 10:42 am

Meanwhile, the first Earl of Sandwich no longer has a carbon footprint. So consider the alternative…

AndyG55
January 25, 2018 10:43 am

Actually, I prefer my sandwiches “de-constructed” (that is the correct SJW restaurant term isn’t it)
Nice bread roll with butter, some different cheeses and some quality ham (or other meat) on the side.
Bit of salad tossed in a separate bowl.

brianjohn
January 25, 2018 10:44 am

Every year I celebrate Earth Hour in terms of how wonderful is the bounty we enjoy and take for granted during our lives, such as energy delivered to our doorstep, being able to live in Canada (where 90% of the country would be uninhabitable for most of the population were it not for our wonderful power and transportation systems), AND going to the grocery store to buy a package of sliced ham, or Wendy’s for a burger and fries.
Instead of turning off all the power in my home for an hour on Earth Day, I turn ON all of the lights, interior and exterior, take a picture of the house from across the street, and send copies to my friends and colleagues. (with a note that marvels at all of the wonders of modern technology, engineering, and society).
Full disclosure: I’m a retired Field Development Petroleum Engineer. P.Eng. (Alberta)

AndyG55
Reply to  brianjohn
January 25, 2018 10:48 am

Last time I even bothered about Earth hour, I set up 3600w of stage lighting in the back yard. (all the house circuits can take)
Pretty reds and blues. 🙂
disclosure….. . I have nothing to do with the coal, gas, oil industry except to use their products. 🙂

Ken
Reply to  brianjohn
January 25, 2018 10:57 am

You should also fly on a chartered G6 (alone) to visit a fellow climate denier on a different continent.

tom s
Reply to  brianjohn
January 25, 2018 2:33 pm

I know of nobody who even knows about earth hour.

John
January 25, 2018 10:45 am

Just when you think they’ve jumped the shark, they find a bigger one to jump.

Don S
January 25, 2018 10:45 am

This reminds me of something you’d see in a vintage episode of Monty Python’s Flying Circus.

Not Chicken Little
January 25, 2018 10:47 am

And in California a bill has been introduced in the state legislature to fine up to $1000 and imprison for up to 6 months, any waiter who brings an unrequested plastic straw with a drink.
I wonder if it is possible to somehow get all the crazies to live somewhere all together, so they do not bother the rest of us. California seems to be trying to put this into practice already. As someone else asked recently, forget about California seceding from the USA – is it possible for them to be ejected?

Oldseadog
Reply to  Not Chicken Little
January 25, 2018 10:58 am

Good idea.
I nominate South Sandwich Islands.

Sara
Reply to  Not Chicken Little
January 25, 2018 11:29 am

You have to build an enclosure around the place they inhabit, walls too high for them to climb and leaning slightly inward, and no escape hatches, either.
No straws except on request, huh? Well, drinking straws are a necessary sanitary item, just like soap for used dishes. Without drinking straws, the possibility of transmitting nasty things like bad colds and mumps and the epizootic increase exponentially in the population. That means that, from now on, you’ll have to bring your own drinking vessel.

Marque2
Reply to  Not Chicken Little
January 25, 2018 1:04 pm

It includes the paper eco straws as well 6 months for any straw.

Bryan A
Reply to  Not Chicken Little
January 25, 2018 2:20 pm

And so I always ask for two straws with every drink. If you ask they must bring.

tom s
Reply to  Not Chicken Little
January 25, 2018 2:34 pm

They do. It’s called California.

AllyKat
Reply to  Not Chicken Little
January 25, 2018 2:47 pm

In one of my biology courses, a scenario was outlined that began with a massive earthquake causing California to separate from the continent. I do not remember the point of the exercise (something about population demographics or genetics), but this kind of insanity makes me think that such an occurrence might not be such a bad thing. Clearly the legislature has already separated from reality and reason.
I have to wonder, is the problem the straw or that it was “unrequested”? The fact that a “requested” straw is apparently acceptable indicates that the bill is not really about straws at all…
At least not drinking straws.

Sara
Reply to  AllyKat
January 25, 2018 3:36 pm

No, it is about the straw that broke the camel’s back.

Sheri
January 25, 2018 10:54 am

If I make my own bread, shoot the deer in my yard, raise the duck meat, the tomatoes, ect, would I win any points with the AGW crowd? No? Thought so.

Mumbles McGuirck
Reply to  Sheri
January 25, 2018 1:08 pm

Shoot the deer anyway. Otherwise, it will eat your vegetables.

Sheri
Reply to  Mumbles McGuirck
January 25, 2018 5:38 pm

Nine foot fence around the garden prevents that. Deer repellent in the winter helps save the trees. However, the darn things like to hang out on the east side of the house right under a window, lazing around. I figure they owe me one or two corpses when hunting season rolls around.

Peta of Newark
January 25, 2018 10:56 am

There was/is a school (for 5 to 11 year olds) somewhere here in England that recently took upon itself to police what the children brought in for their lunches. Obviously to impose ‘good health’
Kids of that age cab be ‘determined little critters’ and the story went of one young lad who brought a sausage roll to school in his bait-box intended for lunch.
Oh he11 no. Verboten. The offending sausage roll was confiscated.
Of course, hapless kid is left with nothing for lunch so the education brain boxes that we now employ presented the young lad with a ham sandwich – to replace the sausage roll.
Much healthier innit
Let analyse this..
Sausage roll = pastry (wheat flour combined with fat) wrapped around some precessed meat
Ham sandwich = wheat flour (to make the bread), fat (margarine or butter) of some sort and then some processed meat (the actual ham) slapped in the middle.
Exactly the same ingredients so how precisely is one of those recipes healthier than the other?
Even worse is the ‘ham’ in the sandwich = a nice pink colour brought on by the use of nitrites – the new bogey men of human nutrition.
And the people who call themselves ‘teachers’ actually pulled off this blinding feat of intelligence then, at going-home time, gave the kid his sausage roll back.
Awww hark at me, I’ve just worked it out – we’ve a new Donald Trump here ain’t we?
It was device used by the kid to get a free lunch.
beautiful

TA
January 25, 2018 10:58 am

From the article: “Altogether the team looked at 40 different sandwich types, recipes and combinations.”
Good God!

Ben of Houston
Reply to  TA
January 25, 2018 11:06 am

Once you do the basic math for the ingredients, additional sandwich types are a few minutes at most.

ResourceGuy
Reply to  TA
January 25, 2018 11:08 am

This one study may have broken the logjam in Brexit negotiations. Let them leave at no cost and we won’t look back.

ResourceGuy
Reply to  TA
January 25, 2018 11:10 am

It was fun while it lasted and further research on other foods is needed.

Dudley Horscroft
Reply to  ResourceGuy
January 25, 2018 5:03 pm

Consider that the materials in a fried egg and bacon sandwich are mostly of local origin, and are fairly dense, so have low air miles for transportation. Now consider your bowl of cornflakes – ignoring any plastic toys. Materials imported from the corn producing states of the USA several thousand miles to the processing centre in the UK, ground up, liquefied and flattened and then dried to produce a very low density material, which needs very large boxes to contain 1 kg (you could probably get 10 kg or perhaps even 20 kg of sandwiches in the same sized box) and then transported a fair distance to somewhere else in the UK for you to buy, needing large lorries to carry a small load because of the low density. At least the milk is fairly high density, bing mostly water, and if you sprinkle sugar on it – it is only a small amount – it is local from the sugar beet fields of East Anglia, or wherever.
I reckon that the fried egg and bacon sandwich beats the cornflakes hands down in the amount of beneficial fat, protein and vitamins, not to say the low air miles and cost, compared to the minimal amount of carbohydrate of the cornflakes, negligible vitamins (unless processed high vitamin milk) and small amount of carbohydrate of the added sugar.
And remember that all carbohydrates are broken down in the body to sugars – I quote from
Wikipaedia:
“Although humans consume a variety of carbohydrates, digestion breaks down complex carbohydrates into a few simple monomers for metabolism: glucose, fructose, and galactose.[4] Glucose constitutes about 80% of the products, and is the primary structure that is distributed to cells in the tissues, where it is broken down or stored as glycogen.[3][4] In aerobic respiration, the main form of cellular respiration used by humans, glucose and oxygen are metabolized to release energy, with carbon dioxide and water as byproducts.[2] Most of the fructose and galactose travel to the liver, where they can be converted to glucose.[4]”
So there!
Even better, eat the fried eggs and bacon and forget the bread.

AllyKat
Reply to  TA
January 25, 2018 2:49 pm

I think the creator of the study just really likes sandwiches and figured out how to get someone else to pay for them.

Martin457
January 25, 2018 10:59 am

Other than the meat, most sandwich ingredients sequestered carbon dioxide.

Reply to  Martin457
January 25, 2018 11:24 am

A good point. Same logic that deforests for wood chip powered generation. Mind you I think meat should be included; but a complex issue.

MarkW
Reply to  Martin457
January 25, 2018 1:23 pm

Meat sequesters CO2 as well, just not as directly or as efficiently.
Not that there is any reason to sequester CO2.

Bob Burban
Reply to  MarkW
January 25, 2018 3:19 pm

“Not that there is any reason to sequester CO2”. Not only is carbon sequestered, but so is oxygen.

MarkW
Reply to  MarkW
January 25, 2018 5:25 pm

Two for the price of one.

Jon
January 25, 2018 11:02 am

I wonder what the climate impact of climate studies is.
Condider the whole production chain – building the factory/university, then administering it, raising and training the academics for 20-30 years, the carbon costs of having people (awash with carbon!) doing the research and so on.
This would have a much greater impact than store-bought sandwiches!
Let’s fix this and start by removing thr people (carbon sinks!) From the universities, beginning if course with the climate researchers 😀

Sara
Reply to  Jon
January 25, 2018 11:40 am

I support this idea. I thought of it, too, but in order to be all-encompassing and all-inclusive, you must include the carbon footprint of the crowd of people who support them but do not comply with the whole carbon reduction thing on a day-to-day basis.
I submit cheerfully that by investigating the carbon generated by their use of computers, commuting whether by POV, bus, train or cab or walking, use of the very things they excoriate in others (fridges, furnaces, electricity, for examples), and an endless list of examples that expose their apostasy, we can easily demonstrate that not only are they adding exponentially to the carbon load in the atmosphere; they are also engaging in what appears to be fraudulent behavioral posturing and demands for more money for silly brain fart exercises.
They should first have all their computers taken away from them and learn to use pencils and paper and their brains. There are other things that follow, but that’s a start. And no sandwiches for them, either. Eat the sandwiches right in front of them, or the mandarin beef with rice and egg rolls, and take them to task if they aren’t eating stone-cold tofu, no flavoring allowed.

The Reverend Badger
January 25, 2018 11:02 am

If you wander about the web you will find various internet forums where questions come up like “What can I do personally to help combat global warming?”
It’s quite entertaining to engage with these as with a bit of careful banter you can get the point across that instead of giving up meat and cycling to work they will make a massively bigger contribution if they stop going on holiday abroad and get themselves castrated/sterilized. Then ask them if they will commit to doing these 2 things.Can be very funny!

tom s
Reply to  The Reverend Badger
January 25, 2018 2:36 pm

Excellent!

Sara
Reply to  The Reverend Badger
January 25, 2018 3:41 pm

OH, yes – please!!! Have your politicians/environtmentalists spay and neutered. I wrote an article on that a while back, posted elsewhere. Make sure they have all their shots, that they’re dewormed and possibly declawed, and also make sure they are ear-tipped and microchipped. Perhaps tattooed on the inside of one leg, or the upper lip like they do with racehorses?

J
January 25, 2018 11:11 am

And the bread, you know that stuff is made to rise with CO2 bubbles !
Should we switch to unleavened bread for sandwiches ?

Sara
Reply to  J
January 25, 2018 11:49 am

I don’t know about that. I use crackers for a lot of things. And flatbread is THE oldest food item in use by humans, going back 10,000 years or maybe further. There’s also something they used to call hardtack which now comes in many flavors and sizes as Krisp flatbreads.
Maybe we should use the Host wafers from Sunday communion? Before or after the Blessing? (Was that naughty of me?)

John F. Hultquist
Reply to  Sara
January 25, 2018 12:24 pm

Say 3 Hail Marys, please.

Bryan A
Reply to  Sara
January 25, 2018 12:28 pm

2 our fathers
and do the stations of the cross

Sara
Reply to  Sara
January 25, 2018 3:43 pm

When I was 4, I thought people were saying ‘And with a carrot’. But now, it should be let us go forth for pizzas.

WB Wilson
Reply to  J
January 26, 2018 12:35 pm

I will make them a carbon-free sandwich. It will consist only of air.

January 25, 2018 11:15 am

I tried determining the amount of CO2 produced by driving a car 12 miles, and I think 1441 grams is erroneously low, more like driving a car 7 miles. I figure that if a car that gets 40 MPG is driven 12 miles while burning gasoline with a density of .719 g/ml and a chemical formula oversimplified to (CH2)n, the amount of CO2 produced is nearly 2600 grams.

MarkW
Reply to  Anthony Watts
January 25, 2018 12:17 pm

Not if the car is properly tuned, and little if any of what is produced by the engine will survive the trip through the catalytic converter.

RWturner
Reply to  Donald L. Klipstein
January 25, 2018 12:19 pm

Not to mention unburned VoCs, NOx, and black carbon.

MarkW
Reply to  Donald L. Klipstein
January 25, 2018 1:25 pm

Gasoline is a blend of a number of different molecules. Not to mention some additives put in by the refiner.

SteveT
Reply to  Donald L. Klipstein
January 26, 2018 12:34 am

Donald L. Klipstein
January 25, 2018 at 11:15 am
I tried determining the amount of CO2 produced by driving a car 12 miles, and I think 1441 grams is erroneously low, more like driving a car 7 miles. I figure that if a car that gets 40 MPG is driven 12 miles while burning gasoline with a density of .719 g/ml and a chemical formula oversimplified to (CH2)n, the amount of CO2 produced is nearly 2600 grams.

I don’t think you are using the VW software correctly. If you do, it will come out quite a bit lower than expected. 🙂
Do I need the sarc tag?
SteveT

January 25, 2018 11:19 am

I would like to think that this is a student prank; but suspect not; being an example of current university “SatanicCO2 Meme Groupthink” now gone viral in our educational establishments. Heaven help us and more importantly our children. Mental stress — Here we come if we take this seriously.
PS: Exercise produces extra CO2. – Well known fact. Cyclists produce about 15 g/ kilometre. Now that IS something to worry about.😙🤥

ResourceGuy
January 25, 2018 11:19 am

I guess the tacos got off light today. But not for long Pedro.

ossqss
January 25, 2018 11:27 am

Could anything be more ridiculous? Well,,,,,, yes.
http://reason.com/blog/2018/01/25/california-bill-would-criminalize-restau

Sara
Reply to  ossqss
January 25, 2018 3:50 pm

Okay, if I have to drink out of a vessel (of any kind) that someone else used and I can’t have a straw without demanding it, and I get sick with some exotic, horrific brain-eating disease that causes constant runny nose syndrome, I will blame it on Ian Calderon and I will sue the pants off him in an ugly, long-drawn-out public battle. I will also sneeze violently in his general direction.
I have said it. Thus it shall be.

Walt D.
January 25, 2018 11:30 am

The Global Warming Sandwich – Full of Baloney

JohnKnight
Reply to  Walt D.
January 26, 2018 1:11 am

The Climate Change sandwich

Dave O.
January 25, 2018 11:31 am

If i starve myself, will I get enough carbon credits to become a multi-millionaire?

Roger Knights
January 25, 2018 11:32 am

Here’s a relevant thread from 2011:
https://wattsupwiththat.com/2011/06/16/ill-never-be-able-to-eat-kobe-beef-again/

Anthony: It’s being called the “poop burger”. Japanese scientists have found a way to create artificial meat from sewage containing human feces.
Roger Knights June 17, 2011 at 6:56 am
Want flies with that?
Anthony: REPLY: LOL! Quite possibly the most simultaneously disgusting, politically incorrect, and hilarious comment I have ever seen. Truly a poop de grace. – Anthony

D. J. Hawkins
Reply to  Roger Knights
January 25, 2018 2:49 pm

It’s still hilarious the second time around.

Extreme Hiatus
January 25, 2018 11:32 am

Anthony, maybe you can get Kenji a membership in the “British Sandwich Association” too?
I’ve always suspected that Big Sandwich and the Coke Brothers were up to something.

Schrodinger's Cat
January 25, 2018 11:39 am

Stories like this one and alarmist rubbish from their climate scientist friends who regularly contribute to the “It’s worse than I thought Department” make me wonder how these people perform on a sort of “terminal Stupidity” index but after exhaustive studies, I realise that stupidity is a dimensionless property that knows no bounds. True stupidity really is infinite in its reach. However, take note that climate change may have an unfair advantage by boosting normal human stupidity by the use of computer models capable of achieving unimaginable stupidity if run on mainframes.

Sara
Reply to  Schrodinger's Cat
January 25, 2018 12:03 pm

Collect the statistics on terminal stupidity and report them here.
I’d like to know just how far it goes.

MarkW
Reply to  Sara
January 25, 2018 2:37 pm

When I first started in programming I had to settle for a dumb terminal.

Matt G
January 25, 2018 11:40 am

‘”Given that sandwiches are a staple of the British diet as well as their significant market share in the food sector, it is important to understand the contribution from this sector to the emissions of greenhouse gases.
‘For example, consuming 11.5 billion sandwiches annually in the UK generates, on average, 9.5 million tonnes of CO2 eq., equivalent to the annual use of 8.6 million cars.”
So consuming fish and chips 11.5 billions times instead will generate how much tonnes of CO2 ?
Nobody on the planet will ever feel guilty about eating food to survive on the planet Earth. All the food chain relies on CO2 and therefore it is essential for life. Why don’t you do us all a favor and stop eating food for ever because there is no where to avoid it by living.
Unbelivable!
https://youtu.be/m4j5wuhFZ_Y?t=1

January 25, 2018 11:45 am

I’ll just have to up my sandwich uptake – after I’ve thrown a few more carbon-emitting logs on the fire, logs produced by my carbon-emitting chain-saw.

Rick C PE
January 25, 2018 11:45 am

This paper would clearly be suitable for publication in The Onion. I found quite an entertaining satire. I really laughed at this part:
“The study also recommends reducing or omitting certain ingredients that have a higher carbon footprint, like lettuce, tomato, cheese and meat.”
I’d be left with two slices of bread with some mayo. LoL.

Sara
January 25, 2018 11:53 am

#SandwichesMatterMost!
#Stop Insulting Sandwiches!
I may pay a visit to Subway myself and get the footlong BMT Italian and some chips.
I just want to know if any of these geniuses are going to give up eating food and eat recycled carcboard instead. I hear it’s good with ketchup and a little Tabasco.

Hivemind
Reply to  Sara
January 25, 2018 6:01 pm

Many years ago, early nutrition scientists feedin corn flakes to rats were surprised to discover that they turned up their toes and died. Not enough nutrients, you see. The surprising part is that the rats that were fed the boxes the cornflakes came in, survived.

Gunga Din
January 25, 2018 11:54 am

I’m confused.
To save the planet, should I have a hot dog without the bun or a bun without the hot dog?

Sara
Reply to  Gunga Din
January 25, 2018 12:17 pm

No. You do it following these steps.
1 – Find out who these bozos are and where they inhabit a spot at a unversity or college.
2 – Visit the campus and the building where they work, with a large picnic basket full of really good things that smell wonderful, say a fragrant Italian beef with or without peppers, or a Philly cheeseteak w/fries, or a thin-sliced smoked ham with a high perfume and a lot of flavor, coupled with lettuce, tomatoes and your choice of sides (chips?).
3 – Include a quart of unflavored tofu, some plastic bowls and a couple of spoons.
4 – Invite them to enjoy lunch with your, but you eat the real food and they get the tofu. And only water to drink for them.
5 – Indicate that you will do this every day until they leave their world of fantasy (university) and find real jobs asking people “would you like fries or onion rings with that?” at a Renaissance Faire.

Gunga Din
Reply to  Sara
January 26, 2018 9:00 am

I don’t have the time to do all those steps but, if someone else does, may I suggest that instead of plastic bowls and spoons they should be hand-carved wooden or sun-baked clay bowls and spoons?

Roger Knights
January 25, 2018 12:01 pm

I like their suggestion that use-by and sell-by dates be extended or not taken literally.
BTW, I’ve read that “food waste” statistics are inflated by counting rinds and such matter—and even packaging—as waste. And by guilt-tripping the consume for things that aren’t his fault, such as by counting supermarket discards of ugly veggies and post-harvest mold and rodent damage.

Matt G
Reply to  Roger Knights
January 25, 2018 12:17 pm

Their suggestion is a disgrace because use by dates are there for safety reasons. Food poisoning risk increases greatly eating after a use by date. Best before though are all about quality of product and will not harm.
https://www.food.gov.uk/science/microbiology/use-by-and-best-before-dates
“The ‘use by’ date is a really important one to take note of: after this date, the food may not be safe to eat. Foods that can cause harm when they go ‘off’ will be labelled with a use-by date.”

AndyG55
Reply to  Matt G
January 25, 2018 12:32 pm

I found a little pot of tomato paste in my fridge yesterday.. “Best by 1.5.2012”
Now we are talking FLAVOUR in a spag bol. !! 🙂

AndyG55
Reply to  Matt G
January 25, 2018 12:33 pm

ps.. Actually, I tossed it in the bin.. very wasteful of me, I know.

Sara
Reply to  Matt G
January 25, 2018 1:07 pm

Oh, don’t feel bad, AndyG55. I found a jar of pasta sauce in the cupboard that is now 6 months past its expiration date. But since the tomato-based stuff I’m buying now is being extended to 3 years instead of 2, I’m thinking I can nuke the bugs (if any) in the microwave and still have some pasta sauce… or I canjust toss it and make the sauce from scratch.
Here’s yer basic pasta sauce recipe: tomatoes; olive oi; garlic; salt. Simmer the tomatoes (canned are okay) and smush them a lot, on a very low heat, with the olive oil salt and garlic added at the start. Get this mix smushed to a paste, add a little more tomato and keep stirring so it won’t burn, then taste test it. You can also use a bain-marie to cook it to keep the tomatoes from burning. A small batch is better than wasting half a jar of commercial sauce.

Matt G
Reply to  Matt G
January 25, 2018 2:11 pm

After a certain length of time after the best before date, the quality of the product mainly becomes poor, so usually not worth eating or risking anyway.

AllyKat
Reply to  Matt G
January 25, 2018 3:02 pm

Considering that the authors seem to be talking primarily about fresh food (i.e., produce, ready-made sandwiches, etc.), such a suggestion is alarming. Yes, many of these dates are conservative, but that is to decrease the chances that someone will get sick or worse. How many of us have had milk go sour or meat go “off” before the expiration/sell-by date? It happens even with precautions.
I am all for reducing food waste, and I will eat processed foods after the sell/use/best by dates, but only to a point, and the dates definitely matter more for some foods than others. I would never eat a “fresh” pre-made sandwich that was made days before.

Joel Snider
January 25, 2018 12:10 pm

Someone requested and was given a grant for this.
Which is stupider? Hard to say.
I’m sorry – these are the big brains these days?
Oh well, this’ll just make my plot to destroy the world all the easier. I’ll just pack a lunch.

RWturner
Reply to  Joel Snider
January 25, 2018 12:15 pm

In 100,000 years, alien archeologists will determine that the foolish species went extinct because they ate too many concoctions consisting of protein and fiber layered between two carbohydrate sheets.

Gunga Din
Reply to  RWturner
January 25, 2018 12:46 pm

And insisting that male and female spend less time between the sheets. To save the planet.

RWturner
January 25, 2018 12:11 pm

Extraordinary Popular Delusions and the Madness of Crowds – An entire new volume could be written about the climate cult.

Jer0me
January 25, 2018 12:22 pm

Keeping sandwiches chilled in supermarkets and shops also contributes to their carbon footprint. This can account for up to a quarter of their greenhouse gas emission equivalent.

Leaving a sandwich with meat in it at room temperature for too long can make it poisonous. A great way to get food poisoning. So if you want to avoid that, you should refrigerate it yourself anyway!
Choose: CO2 or food poisoning. (Hint, we chose CO2 many decades ago because food poisoning sucks.)

Vern Decker
January 25, 2018 12:29 pm

Send more money and we’ll find ways to spend it.

Reg Nelson
January 25, 2018 12:40 pm

This reminded me of the Blues Brothers song Rubber Biscuit.
“Have you ever heard of a wish sandwich? A wish sandwich is the kind of a
sandwich where you have two slices of bread and you, hee hee hee, wish you
had some meat…
Bow bow bow.”

Lancifer
January 25, 2018 12:43 pm

“The study also recommends reducing or omitting certain ingredients that have a higher carbon footprint, like lettuce, tomato, cheese and meat.”
So you can have a BLT so long as you don’t have any B, L or T.

mikewaite
January 25, 2018 12:43 pm

Maybe this team have pointed themselves in a rather silly direction by linking the production of some street foods to climate change, but underneath their research there is a serious topic .
When I first started living in London as a student in the 60s the main line stations had no eating facilities apart from crisps’ dispensers and maybe a bar that no sane person would enter , being full of Millwall or QPR football fans.
Now when I pass through termini such as Paddington or Victoria I am overwhelmed by the smell and sight of innumerable burger sellers, baguette stall and coffee outlets .No matter what the hour or the footfall through the concourse these places are full of food . It cannot all be eaten in a day . To reheat it would be dangerous and illegal and the bread will stale and become unsaleable .
So what happens to it? Landfill, incineration? There is a carbon footprint , but there is surely also enormous waste which some might find slightly offensive when many people inside and outside our country are undernourished. Mind you it does not stop me enjoying these facilities when I need them so I am no doubt a hypocrite.
I once read that the sandwiches at, I think ,one outlet in Manchester airport were not prepared here but prepared and flown in from New York where the labour was so much cheaper. Now there is a carbon footprint. .

jarthuroriginal
January 25, 2018 12:53 pm

Could some body pass the mustard?

Sara
Reply to  jarthuroriginal
January 25, 2018 1:19 pm

Spicy brown, Dijon, or full seeded?

D. J. Hawkins
Reply to  Sara
January 25, 2018 2:55 pm

I like the Dijon myself, but I wouldn’t say “no” to the other two. As a bachelor I had more containers of different mustards in the fridge than all other items combined.

jarthuroriginal
Reply to  Sara
January 28, 2018 5:33 am

LOL. Which kills the fewest polar bear cubs.

Jeff L
January 25, 2018 12:59 pm

Lets just cut to the chase & get to the underlying premise on all of this – people are bad & the world would be such a better place without us & all our “carbon emissions “
Moronic .
Written from my favorite sandwich shop…

ResourceGuy
January 25, 2018 1:02 pm

The decline of western science is a slippery slope paved with mayo.

The Original Mike M
January 25, 2018 1:20 pm

There aren’t enough beautiful people to cause any problem eating sandwiches, it’s from too many of those “other” people eating them.

Sara
January 25, 2018 1:22 pm

When I read the findings of studies like these, I wonder how anyone can justify wasting tax money on something that simply says ‘in your face’ with no solution to the perceived problem.
The people who cooked up this nonsense presented a “problem” that does not really exist to justify their grant request, done in a way that any bright teen with an agile mind could dismantle in the blink of an eye.
Presenting this as a problem requires a solution, which they did not propose at all. Therefore, their entire piece of work is totally bogus, man!!!!

Mark Jordon
January 25, 2018 1:26 pm

I wonder what the Earl of Sandwich would think of this paper

ResourceGuy
January 25, 2018 1:39 pm

The Sandwich Islands are sinking a little today.

The Original Mike M
January 25, 2018 2:00 pm

“The greatest contributor to the carbon footprint of both types of sandwich is the agricultural production of ingredients, …”
News Flash! – “Carbon based life discovered to make carbon foot print!”
What is the carbon footprint of government waste such as the over production needed to generate the tax to fund “studies” like this one?

Tom in Florida
January 25, 2018 2:02 pm

What??? No mention of PB&J?
I wonder if I could get a grant to research the demographics of people who put the PB on one slice of bread and the J on the other then stick them together versus putting the PB on one slice and the J on top of the PB then adding the second slice of bread on top of that.

Reply to  Tom in Florida
January 25, 2018 3:39 pm

+1

TDBraun
January 25, 2018 2:13 pm

Which kind of mustard is the least dirty carbon emitter?
I bet it’s Grey Poupon.
Study that. It’s important we know the contribution of mustard condiments to climate change you know…

DonK31
January 25, 2018 2:14 pm

Altogether the team looked at 40 different sandwich types, recipes and combinations. They found the highest carbon footprints for the sandwiches with pork meat (bacon, ham or sausages) and those containing cheese or prawns.
The sandwich with the lowest carbon emission equivalent is a simple home-made favourite, ham and cheese.
Help me with the logic, please. Eating ham and cheese from McDonalds is the worst thing one can eat, but making a sandwich at home with the same ingredients is the best thing to eat?
Seems to me that the only difference is the extra effort it takes to walk to the corner restaurant

Tom in Florida
Reply to  DonK31
January 25, 2018 2:31 pm

If the sandwiches that have the highest carbon footprint are those containing ham and those containing cheese, how can the lowest be one that contains both?

SteveT
Reply to  Tom in Florida
January 26, 2018 1:23 am

Tom in Florida
January 25, 2018 at 2:31 pm
If the sandwiches that have the highest carbon footprint are those containing ham and those containing cheese, how can the lowest be one that contains both?

Keep up Tom. If CO2 causes warming and cooling what stops cheese and ham being bad and good?
Just following climate change logic has to have this conclusion.
SteveT

tom s
January 25, 2018 2:27 pm

Smelly idiots.

martinbrumby
January 25, 2018 2:29 pm

Little doubt that these Climate Cult ‘researchers’ are a couple of sandwiches short of a picnic.
But, on the other hand, perhaps this blatant stupidity was motivated by charging all the team’s lunches for a month or two, to their ‘research’ grant (and hence to the taxpayer).
What a bunch of Oxygen thieves.

4 Eyes
January 25, 2018 2:38 pm

“…. it is important to understand the contribution from this sector to the emissions of greenhouse gases”. No it’s not.

manicbeancounter
January 25, 2018 2:38 pm

I am from Manchester so I will translate the message for those from just down road like.
Wot folks at University – ya know, those fancy buildings between the curry mile and City centre on Oxford Road – are trying to sell us is that all those fancy butties posh folk down South ‘ave from Subway like are driving up global temperatures. They say stick to traditional butties from Greggs, such as oven bottoms wi’ a bit of ham & cheese and your kids, kids will be saying ta very much for saving the planet. Even better still make your own, and wrap in newspaper rather than plastic.
Remember of course not to digress. Wholemeal bread and egg cause can cause personal emissions of a gas twenty-five times more deadly than CO2. And do please remember to forsake the curry mile, which can have similar impacts.
Translation : “butties” is Mancunian for “sandwiches“.

Annie
Reply to  manicbeancounter
January 25, 2018 3:38 pm

Thanks for a good laugh there Manicbeancounter. 🙂

Sara
Reply to  manicbeancounter
January 25, 2018 3:57 pm

Right now, I could just swim in a bacon butty.

catweazle666
Reply to  manicbeancounter
January 28, 2018 4:49 pm

When I worked in Manchester the typical sandwich was composed of about quarter of a pound of suitable filler – ham, cheese, tuna etc. – in a ‘barm cake’.

Moderately Cross of East Anglia
January 25, 2018 2:52 pm

So my response is that I will make a point of making sandwiches with at least three different types of meat and exotic fillers from as many different regions of the world as possible and then drive at least twelve miles to a nice picnic spot to eat it. There…that should add so life giving CO2 to the atmosphere.

January 25, 2018 2:54 pm

For people with calcium oxalate kidney stones, who are trying to follow a low oxalate diet, … tofu, spinach, and rye are ALL on the “avoid” list, as each is fairly high in oxalates, especially spinach.
But, hey, kidney stones are a small price to pay for a healthy environment where we suffer with them. The solution seems clear, however — ask for the voluntary self-extermination of all people with calcium oxalate kidney stones. Think of the children.

Editor
January 25, 2018 2:54 pm

How would you like a meatless and cheese-less Ham and Cheese Sub?

jakee308
January 25, 2018 2:58 pm

Drive to the FURTHEST sandwich shop! Don’t these people hear how stupid they sound? They unconvince me more and more with their every word. When they all start moving to the arctic is when I’ll believe we might have a problem. Until then I see nothing to dislike about being warmer. I think in less than 3 years we’re all going to wish Global Warming was true. Sun has been very very quiescent. Not good for temps. Any speculation any where about why the Sun has gone so quiet?

Moderately Cross of East Anglia
Reply to  jakee308
January 25, 2018 3:04 pm

It’s doing it for spite..

Reply to  jakee308
January 25, 2018 3:35 pm

When they all start moving to the Arctic is when I celebrate that the loonies are leaving. They can create their own little utopia with all of their crazy ideas and leave the rest of us the heck alone.

Sara
Reply to  jakee308
January 25, 2018 4:00 pm

Yes, but there’s no land for them to sit on in the Arctic. If they move up there, they will install solar furnaces which will threaten snowy owls and make the ice melt. They will then sink into the icy-cold water and flounder…. Oh.
Never mind.

AllyKat
January 25, 2018 3:07 pm

If they really want people to change their behavior, they should address the matter this way:
It is way cheaper to make your own sandwich at home. Save “X” pounds/dollars a year!

January 25, 2018 3:33 pm

Have they calculated the impact of a peanut butter and jelly sandwich?
This is a prime example of too much funding in the area of climate science. What did they think the outcome of this study was going to be, people stop eating?

Editor
Reply to  jgriggs3
January 27, 2018 6:56 am

About time someone finally mentioned PB&J. It’s gotta have one of the lowest CO2 footprints.

Annie
January 25, 2018 3:35 pm

Are you quite quite sure it isn’t April the 1st?

SteveT
Reply to  Annie
January 26, 2018 1:32 am

Once upon a time Manchester University had intelligent people studying and working there. Soon there will be no Subway (gone out of business) waiting to employ them when they finish their degrees.
SteveT

January 25, 2018 3:51 pm

“The sandwich with the lowest carbon emission equivalent is a simple home-made favourite, ham and cheese.”

Amazing how that works!
A home made sandwich made of components purchased at grocery stores; sometimes at one grocery store.
Allegedly causes the lowest CO2 impacts; yet identical commercially made sandwiches made with commercially distributed components cause higher levels of CO2 emissions?
One thing is clear, the researchers are quite blinded by confirmation bias.

“The results show the largest contributor to a sandwich’s carbon footprint is the agricultural production and processing of their ingredients. Depending on the type, this can account for around 37%-67% of CO2 eq. for ready-made sandwiches.”

That sure sounds like an indictment against all foods. Why pick on sandwiches.

“Keeping sandwiches chilled in supermarkets and shops also contributes to their carbon footprint. This can account for up to a quarter of their greenhouse gas emission equivalent. Then there is the packaging material which comes in at up to 8.5 % and, finally, transporting materials and refrigerating sandwiches themselves adds a further 4%.”

That school of alleged “chemical engineering and analytical sciences” appears to have quite a few difficulties with real objects in a real world.
A) How do these folks determine exactly how much cooling is required for a sandwich?
Their results sound suspiciously like calculating the gross energy demands and construction emissions then dividing by a small amount of sandwiches.
What is absent in this group’s study are any tendrils of common sense.
Tofu sandwiches require significant processing just to produce tofu.
It is not science.
According to these lunatics; food should be much more expensive than it is.
Obviously all commercial food growers, producers, processors, distribution, selling, etc. should go out of business.
Focusing their results on sandwiches ignores the end result that is a demand for people should starve.

January 25, 2018 3:52 pm

How anyone can still deny the new world order is not a theory is beyond me.
Complete surveillance, check
Long term population reduction, check
Destroying nationhood, check
Homogenizing cultures by forcing an influx of immigrants who care not about the country, check
Poisoning the water, air, and food, check
Destroying the family unit, check
Endless war, check
Cashless society, nearly check
Biometric surveillance, check
Transhumanist AI agenda, check
Androgenous society of confusion, check
Smart grid energy control, check
Using the vital life nutrient carbon as Boogeyman, literally this is an attack on life itself because these people are legitimately satanic. Controlling everyone and everything based on the one tax no one can escape. Carbon dioxide output. From birth, a human will immediately begin amazing carbon debts that need repayed beginning when of working age and without cash they can shut off your ability to access anything in the market with the biometrics. The drones monitor the no-human zones (which are extensive BTW just review the agenda 21/2030 maps)… And on and on
Ten years ago I certainly had a harder time believing it possible, or even proving it. Now, they don’t even hide it anymore. That disgusting sandwich nonsense is predictive programming. Getting the population rest to accept this as normalcy.
It’s time for us to do something about this, but logical folk and not Marxists trend to be so individualistic that we rarely unite. I don’t have the answers but the evidence is mounting faster every day.

Sara
January 25, 2018 4:03 pm

This has been fun. I’m sure there is more to come. But, Anthony, you misspelled the proper name of the subject at hand.
It should be SAMMICHES! 2 ms, as in ‘make me a sammich, da==it!’

u.k.(us)
January 25, 2018 4:21 pm

I’ll give you my Philly cheesesteak sandwich when you pry it from my cold, dead hands.
Combine it with cheese fries and there’s no telling the depths I might go, to protect them.

Gary Pearse
January 25, 2018 4:44 pm

Yeah, there are so many 10s of thousands of climate ‘scientists’ (remember Cooks analysis over 13000 papers over ten years), that they are casting about to find topics that haven’t been worked to the bone. How do they do this without laughing their a55es off? Its because we are flooding scientific institutions with sub 100 Is a since the doors were thrown wide open.

Mike Maguire
January 25, 2018 5:08 pm

Eating all that meat with the resulting additional CO2 emissions has a positive feedback……….more food produced, more food to eat (-:
More food for animals to eat…… more animal meat to eat by humans…….more CO2 produced……… more food for humans and animals……..
http://www.fao.org/worldfoodsituation/csdb/en/
“Following this month’s further upward revision to the forecast for the 2017 global cereal production, world cereal supplies in the 2017/18 season are expected to rise to an all-time high of nearly 3 331 million tonnes. While global cereal utilization in 2017/18 is also heading for an increase (1.2 percent) from the previous season, world cereal inventories are projected to climb steadily for the fifth consecutive season, rising to a record high level of almost 726 million tonnes.”
And the non edible plant world loves it too!
“Carbon Dioxide Fertilization Greening Earth, Study Finds”
https://www.nasa.gov/feature/goddard/2016/carbon-dioxide-fertilization-greening-earth
Carbon is a SOLID. CO2 is a beneficial GAS. Eating sandwiches is not resulting in a “carbon footprint” which is just a made up bullshit term. Carbon, the solid has no effect on global warming. Carbon compounds form the basis for all life on earth.
When you irrigate your lawn with H2O are you leaving a hydrogen footprint?
“Carbon footprint” “Climate Crisis” “Catastrophic Anthropocentric Global Warming” “Extreme Weather” “Unprecedented Weather/Climate” Bullshit!
The last 4 decades have featured the best weather/climate and especially CO2 conditions for most life on this greening and slightly warmer planet since the Medieval Warm Period, 1,000 years ago that was this warm globally……….before people ate so many meat loaded sandwiches.

Mike Maguire
Reply to  Mike Maguire
January 25, 2018 5:12 pm

“Anthropocentric” = Anthropogenic

Smart Rock
January 25, 2018 5:22 pm

They found the highest carbon footprints for the sandwiches with pork meat (bacon, ham or sausages) and those containing cheese or prawns.
………………………………………..
The sandwich with the lowest carbon emission equivalent is a simple home-made favourite, ham and cheese.

Well that’s good to know
Oh, wait. There must be a difference between a “carbon footprint” and a “carbon emission equivalent”
Now I’ve got it.

January 25, 2018 5:40 pm

Sandwiches are pretty terrible over the counter in England. i can’t really complain if they improve the quality by whingeing about CO2. Seriously shoddy sandwichmanship needs to be righted.

NotChickenLittle
January 25, 2018 6:21 pm

Climate change – is there ANYTHING it can’t do? And to think, Man causes it all! We are like gods! Maybe better! And look at all the employment it’s caused…

Ian McCandless
Reply to  NotChickenLittle
January 25, 2018 8:18 pm

NotChickenLittle “Climate change – is there ANYTHING it can’t do?”
Yes– it can’t prove a negative, because that is the entire fallacy that is climate change… and as I explained, it’s the fault of mainstream scientists themselves for allowing themselves to be baited into refuting the panic-mongers, against scientific protocols of first requiring them to validate their hypothesis… and this opened Pandora’s Box.

willhaas
January 25, 2018 6:30 pm

Those that believe that the burning of fossil fuels is a bad thing should stop making use of all goods and services that make use of fossil fuels in any way. After all it is their money that keeps the fossil fuel companies in business and it is their actions that actually have caused fossil fuels to be burned. For example, most food that we buy is produced and transported by the use of fossil fuels so do not buy or eat any such foods. The clothes one wears were at the very least transported via the use of fossil fuels so do not wear clothes. Most man made structures and surfaces involved the use of fossil fuels so do not go into any man made structure or walk on any man made surface such as asphault, concrete, wood or any man made road or trail. Most water that you find has been transported using pipes or water chanels that are man made so do not drink any. Do not avail oneself of modern medicine because it all has involved the use of fossil fuels. So it is a lot more than the sandwitch that is at fault here.

paqyfelyc
Reply to  willhaas
January 26, 2018 2:00 am

+1

January 25, 2018 7:19 pm

“Researchers at The University of Manchester”. If they have the time to this rubbish they are obviously not required. Put them on the dole, now!

SocietalNorm
January 25, 2018 7:53 pm

Yes, of course sandwiches have a carbon footprint.
To be spiritually in tune with Gaia, we must all be hunter-gatherers (without fire) so we have no carbon footprint. Of course that would require 99% of the people on earth to die miserable deaths. It would all be worth it though, because the researchers at the University of Manchester could feel really good about themselves – at least until they were torn apart and eaten by other starving humans.

u.k.(us)
Reply to  SocietalNorm
January 25, 2018 8:02 pm

And…the…penguins…..will…inherit…the…earth….
(now play Rush).

Ian McCandless
Reply to  SocietalNorm
January 25, 2018 8:08 pm

I’m afraid that’s impossible, because actually, agriculture began because humans completely populated the Earth, and there was simply nothing left to “Hunt and gather,” and so agriculture was essential to provide enough food for the growing population. Then undeveloped Farmland ran out, and organized religion began, in order to maximize population-growth in order to claim and defend it against rival civilizations.
So now here we are with 7 billion people, less than 1% of which can be fed by Paleolithic means; but the good news for feeding the rest, is that you can’t eat to produce carbon, without growing the food to absorb it first from The Atmosphere, by photosynthesis….I.e. SOLAR POWER!
That’s going to drive the climate-kooks insane, even more than they already are.

paqyfelyc
Reply to  Ian McCandless
January 26, 2018 2:00 am

You basically have it all upside down.
It’s not true that agriculture began because there was simply nothing left to “Hunt and gather”. Fishers kept fishing, and rulers kept hunting, and all of them always had plenty game.
Agriculture most probably began for religious reason, some sort of sacrifice as memorial to people dead out of hunger (while wine libation will not grow a vine, a grain offering WILL, if done properly, grow you back grain), and developed because of practical (more food produced) and cultural advantages (top class kept hunting, and owned cattle, lower class were told to grow their food the way taught by priests — a vegetal, low grade food that put them at a disadvantage). Rival civilizations never was the main issue, only a second concern, after the control by rulers on their own of the same civilization.

u.k.(us)
Reply to  Ian McCandless
January 26, 2018 5:11 pm

I respectively disagree.
In the U.S. you can drive for hours and see nothing but forest.
Then park the car and walk for hours thru the forest, generally never seeing any sign of humanity once you are a mile down the “trail”.
It clears the mind….. you do tend to “check your six” occasionally, what with the bears/wolves/cougars roaming around.

Editor
Reply to  Ian McCandless
January 27, 2018 7:04 am

Agriculture may have begun when CO2 levels were high enough to support it.
http://www.worldclimatereport.com/archive/previous_issues/vol3/v3n14/greening.htm says in small part:

Because atmospheric CO2 directly affects photosynthesis and plant productivity, this rise in CO2 must have increased the performance of many forerunners of modern agricultural plants. Importantly, not all plants felt the same benefits—weedy plants were losing out to plants favored by early agriculturists.
One of Sage’s more compelling arguments comes from the remarkable synchrony of agricultural development around the world. Wheat, barley, lentils, and chickpeas were all domesticated in the Middle East by 10,000 years ago. In eastern Asia, rice and millets were domesticated 9,000 years ago.

Ian McCandless
January 25, 2018 7:58 pm

“A carbon footprint?” Wow, I am really uneducated… I didn’t even know that carbon had feet!

Ian McCandless
January 25, 2018 8:11 pm

Who wrote this article anyway, a bitter old maid named “Miss Anthropy?”

Ian McCandless
January 25, 2018 8:23 pm

Hey I know: GLOBAL CANNIBALISM!
Two birds, one stone.
We’ll start with the Manchester sandwich.

MS
January 25, 2018 10:59 pm

Climate “science” and narrative “scientists” and “journalists” have replaced shamans arguing and constantly gossiping that we are angering the spirits—that’s why we have bad luck . . . weather . . and bad hair days. Anyone who disagrees is a heretic snd needs to be burned at the stake.

SAMURAI
January 26, 2018 1:30 am

PHONEY BALONEY!

SAMURAI
Reply to  SAMURAI
January 26, 2018 1:32 am

Sorry.. meant, PHONY..

Sandy In Limousin
January 26, 2018 1:45 am

How does a sandwich for lunch compare with the French 2 hour lunch in terms of Carbon Footprints?

paqyfelyc
Reply to  Sandy In Limousin
January 26, 2018 2:09 am

each is worse than we thought. Except if local and organic.

paqyfelyc
January 26, 2018 2:07 am

Now we know why “Lilo & Stitch” experiment 625, the sandwich-loving one, really WAS a scary monster, after all.

dennisambler
January 26, 2018 2:24 am

If you live in Sandwich, Kent, UK, you should be really worried about the re-sale value of your house now….

Patrick MJD
January 26, 2018 3:29 am

So, my packed lunch, which is usually a sannie (Or left overs), is damaging climate?

January 26, 2018 6:34 am

Ummmm…if you leave out lettuce, tomato, cheese and/or meat, what the hell is in the sandwich? Maybe we’ll all be eating bread sandwiches!I Or we’re all going to be condemned to an eternity of tunafish, sans lettuce or tomato. But won’t the poor tuna be over-fished and become extinct, which should surely trouble all the greenies in the world? BTW, coffee is now being debated as a carcinogen in California, and french fries and potato chips are already labeled as such. Maybe we’re all simply going to be reduced to a lifetime of bread and water!
Actually, I think that the idea is to starve the species homo sapiens into extinction, and leave the planet to the animals and insects…which, considering the IQ level of greenies, leftists and progressives, may not be such a bad idea.

michael hart
January 26, 2018 6:58 am

You’ve made me hungry now looking at that photo, but I fancy a tuna one.

knr
January 26, 2018 8:00 am

Oddly mad ideas like this may be a very good way to kill off the whole AGW BS , for they both seen are stupid and a real threat to people’s normal way of life beyond what they are realistically willing to give in order to ‘save the planet ‘
The madder the better, the more extreme the demands and claims, the faster the end comes for their game. For rule one of politics is get elected, and rule two is stay elected and if the voters turn so the money tap gets turned off as the political will drains away.

observa
January 26, 2018 8:17 am

It’s that hoary old one about life being like a s*#t sandwich. The more bread you’ve got the less s*#t you have to put up with and they sure got the grants so eat up.

ccscientist
January 26, 2018 9:02 am

We should feel bad for simply living. Reminds me of Sheryl Crow giving us advice on how much toilet paper to use. Go away please.

ResourceGuy
January 26, 2018 10:13 am

What is the environmental impact of superfluous research?

ResourceGuy
January 26, 2018 11:14 am

I wonder how many sandwiches Al Gore packed away over the years while jet setting around in the big league of jet fuel carbon emitting.

ResourceGuy
Reply to  ResourceGuy
January 26, 2018 11:16 am

You may use Carl Sagan’s favorite refrain in your answer.

January 26, 2018 11:29 am

Wimp, get a 6″ and drive back later to get another 6″

Ben L.
January 26, 2018 1:42 pm

So basically being alive causes climate change. Ok, I’m good with that.

Reggie
January 26, 2018 6:51 pm

How about sandwiches made with warmer? Wouldn’t that reduce CO2 producers?

%d bloggers like this: