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
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.
+1
“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!
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.
And…the…penguins…..will…inherit…the…earth….
(now play Rush).
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.
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.
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.
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:
“A carbon footprint?” Wow, I am really uneducated… I didn’t even know that carbon had feet!
Who wrote this article anyway, a bitter old maid named “Miss Anthropy?”
Hey I know: GLOBAL CANNIBALISM!
Two birds, one stone.
We’ll start with the Manchester sandwich.
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.
PHONEY BALONEY!
Sorry.. meant, PHONY..
How does a sandwich for lunch compare with the French 2 hour lunch in terms of Carbon Footprints?
each is worse than we thought. Except if local and organic.
Now we know why “Lilo & Stitch” experiment 625, the sandwich-loving one, really WAS a scary monster, after all.
If you live in Sandwich, Kent, UK, you should be really worried about the re-sale value of your house now….
So, my packed lunch, which is usually a sannie (Or left overs), is damaging climate?
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.
You’ve made me hungry now looking at that photo, but I fancy a tuna one.
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.
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.
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.
What is the environmental impact of superfluous research?
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.
You may use Carl Sagan’s favorite refrain in your answer.
Wimp, get a 6″ and drive back later to get another 6″
So basically being alive causes climate change. Ok, I’m good with that.
How about sandwiches made with warmer? Wouldn’t that reduce CO2 producers?