Climate scientists target sandwiches in battle against global warming

Sandwiches carry with them the same carbon emission output as a car driven 12 miles, according to a study from the University of Manchester.

Researchers followed the whole life cycle of a sandwich, including the production of ingredients, and their packaging, as well as food waste. Bacon, ham, and sausages contribute the most to a sandwich’s carbon footprint.

“We need to change the labeling of food to increase the use-by date as these are usually quite conservative,” Professor Adisa Azapagic, who heads up the Sustainable Industrial Systems research group at the university, said in a Jan. 18 press statement.

“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,” Azapagic said.

They estimate that breakfast sandwich generates 1441 grams of carbon dioxide equivalent (CO2 eq.), which is equivalent to driving a car to the grocery store and back. Consuming 11.5 billion sandwiches annually in the UK generates roughly 9.5 million tons of CO2e, which is equivalent to the annual use of 8.6 million cars.’

Researchers also recommend drastically reducing certain ingredients that have a higher carbon footprint, like lettuce, tomato, cheese and meat. Slashing cheese and meat from sandwiches toppings would also reduce the number of calories and make people healthier.

The study also suggested emissions could be cut by 50 percent if changes were made to the recipes, packaging and waste disposal.

Follow Chris White on Facebook and Twitter. 

This article originally appeared in The Daily Caller

Categories

About the Author: Chris White

Chris White is a frequent commentator at the Daily Caller.

37 Comments
  1. Brin Jenkins

    Well as its all based on the false premise that carbon is bad, and the driving force behind the Global warming, and this seems to be a falsehood away.
    Why should we take notice of any fringe study?

  2. Allen

    Where do these people get their degrees, from a cereal box? Do they drive to work, fly to vacations, heat their homes? Idiots.

    • Rick Vitti

      Subway? Really? we refer to it as breadway…junk pure junk! Try a nice small business deli for gthe best sandwiches….yes you will pay more…but you get much better and more! and not one of those snowflake wanna be deli’s a real one!

      • johnnywoods

        Eat any kind of sandwich you choose and enjoy it before the tree huggers and Gia worshipers try to outlaw it.

      • mathis1689

        I live in a rural to semi rural area. The closest restaurant of any kind to my home is at least 5 miles away. So around here if you want a deli sandwich of any kind it’s either Subway or do without.

        • Rick Vitti

          How about you make it yourself?…I am sure there is a grocery store near you. We actually made three 2 foot Italian grinders last night for a gathering of friends. Loaded them up with meat cheese and boar’s head deli dressing. So easy to make and
          Yummm. And we drove out car to get there too. A giant foot print right on the hypocrite Al Gore’s face! Global warming according to him is only for us ‘peasants’ to heed.

          • mathis1689

            Well, as far as my food making skills are concerned, my food is best classified as survival food. You eat it to survive and not for enjoyment!

            My wife on the other hand, is a world class cook and I have the wasteline to prove it. But she’s not a sandwich maker as such. She cooks Southern style.

            • Rick Vitti

              Well…I eat to survive and enjoy at the same time, and eating mass produced garbage is not my way to enjoy what I eat. That comes in strictly in survival mode. Eat, drink and be merry!

              • mathis1689

                I enjoy good food as much as anyone. Just sometimes you eat what’s available and go on. Times like that I try to remember how blessed I am to not be living in North Korea and eating grass to survive.

  3. Ruth Bard

    And just think: if you drive 12 miles to get that sandwich, then sit idling in the drive-through lineup for 10 min, you have effectively QUADRUPLED your emissions by the time you get home. And that doesn’t even factor in the methane emissions after eating it. Be lined up and shot, infidels!

  4. Siding WithConservatives

    This just in….ground breaking research at Manchester Institute Without Common Sense (MIWCS), formerly University of Manchester,…….if we all stop eating, we will all die and will thus minimize our collective carbon foot print….researchers advocate the public stop eating even though they cannot substantiate such action will have any impact on the climate. President of MIWCS signs off while flying to his winter home in the Canary Islands……WHAT INCREDIBLE INSANITy!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

  5. Pauls1

    All this discussion concerning “global warming” has NO scientific foundation. There will be some GLOBAL WARMING as planet earth’s orbit gets closer to the sun(no relationship to an thing anyone on our planet can or will do). There is some degrading of our ionosphere due to dumping of especially of heavy gaseous materials by various space programs. Also the source of our gravity is from internal carbon based materials at our earth’s core.

    Information comes from technical writer’s background work when our very first EPA law was written.

    Paul Schnake

  6. Aardvark

    I think this was a great study! It undeniably points out the absurdity of the global warming “fake science” supporters.

  7. bobwhite1935
  8. J T

    This is quite an informative article, as it further illustrates the stupidity of the brain-dead climate alarmist(s) who wrote it.

  9. MichaelR

    This article is pretty commendable for CFACT. The comments however are hilarious. As usual.

    Our planet has limited resources and over 7 billion people living on it, all consuming more resources per capita each year. The food supply is already unsustainable.
    God forbid people should study how to make our food supply sustainable so it can support the 9.5 billion years that will be on the planet by 2050.
    Manchester University is a very solid institution. The guys who discovered graphene, the most important materials discovery in the last 20 years, that won a Nobel prize, were working at Manchester University.

    Adisa holds a B.Sc. and M.Sc. in Environmental Chemical Engineering and a Ph.D. in Environmental Systems Analysis. She is Professor of Sustainable Chemical Engineering in the School of Chemical Engineering and Analytical Science.
    She is an engineer – she is not a lightweight. Is anyone commenting here a university professor in engineering?

    • Ben Around

      I’ve never heard of such a ridiculous specialty as Sustainable Chemical Engineering. All chemical reactions are sustainable given the proper inputs. Sustainable is a value judgement that has nothing to do with engineering or science.
      BTW who is Professor of Eliminating Evil CO2 from the World?

      • MichaelR2

        If resources are not unlimited or require some time or regenerate then there is a rate that you can use then that is sustainable and a rate that isn’t. If your water supply is a reservoir and it receives X amount of water per year, and your town uses 1.5X per year, soon enough you will have no water.
        I can well see a role for applying these principles to chemical engineering processes. They are often extremely resource intensive. The Haber Bosch process alone uses a couple of percent of all global energy production each year.
        If you don’t agree then I don’t know what to tell you. Email Manchester University and tell them to close the Department and see what they say.

    • Brin Jenkins

      How does an engineer show that C02 is a viable cause of Global heating? I don’t think this is logical, or provable by experimental data. In fact heat releases CO2 from water. Any engineer will know that a swinging pendulum converts energy back and forth from potential energy to kinetic each cycle. Because it’s a closed system friction will decay the oscillations the kintetic energy can never take over to become the driving force.

      • MichaelR

        But the study has nothing to do with mechanisms for global warming and climate change. It makes no claims about how CO2 warms the atmosphere. It makes claims about the resources consumed in delivering sandwiches to consumers, which is in the field of environmental engineering, which a professor in environmental engineering is well qualified to study.

        If you want to argue that CO2 does not cause warming then why criticise an article about sustainability and resource consumption of making and delivering sandwiches to consumers?

        As for your comments about kinetic energy and so on, I did really follow your logic. You might have been alluding to the second law of thermodynamics which talks about the fact that, overall, though not necessarily locally, entropy always increases. But this is not relevant to the atmosphere as it’s not a closed system. There is a star not that far from us and the vacuum of space all around us.

        The reason that CO2 warms the atmosphere is because is retards the escape of infrared radiation into space. Energy is constantly being added by the sun. The rate of loss of energy to space (which can only happen by radiation) is a function of the temperature of the atmosphere and how easy it is for IR leaving surface of the Earth and lower atmosphere to get into space. The harder it is for that IR radiation to get past the lower atmosphere due to scattering (absorption and re-radiation in a random direction) by GHGs, then the hotter the atmosphere gets before an equilibrium is reached between energy in from the sun and energy out by radiation into space.
        So add more GHGs and the atmosphere gets warmer. Take them away and the temperature goes down.

        • Brin Jenkins

          The study seems to claim that sandwiches add to global warming through the Carbon addition. I have seen no viable explanation of how this might happen. What is the exact mechanism that reverses the effect with its cause? As C02 is released by heating, may it also be a cause? Can you explain this please.

          • MichaelR

            I did just do that I thought, in my last paragraph above.

            Yes warmer oceans do release CO2 into the atmosphere. It’s a known form of positive feedback. i.e. CO2 released by man warms the atmosphere and oceans, and the oceans then release a little more CO2, which causes more warming and so on.

            A more important positive feedback effect with the oceans is water vapour. Warming the atmosphere allows the atmosphere to hold more water vapour, like walking into a room with a swimming pool. If the room was freezing cold then the air would not be full of water vapour, but such rooms are kept warm so the air carries lots of water vapour. This is a Daltons Law of ideal gases.

            Anyway, the mechanism here is that CO2 warms the atmosphere so the atmosphere carries more water vapour evoporating from the oceans. Water vapour is a GHG, so you get more warming.

            Another different positive feedback effect is melting ice. Ice reflects nearly all light hitting it back into space. Open ocean does the opposite. So warmer temperatures melt a bit of ice. That reduces reflection of energy and increases absorption of energy. So you get warming. Which causes more ice to melt. And round and round it goes. Right now, the rate of net ice melt globally is about 170 billion tonnes per year. That is the highest in record and that rate is climbing. Note, this is globally. Don’t believe people who only talk about Antarctica. The rate of melt on Greenland and in the Arctic sea ice outstrips the gain of ice in Antarctica by a factor of 3 to 1.

            Because of these and other positive feedback effects, adding CO2 to the atmosphere and it’s temperature response is very non linear. That means that a small disturbance to an equilibrium state (like adding 50% more CO2) can lead to a much bigger response in temperature than just that CO2 acting in its own. It’s like dominos falling and knocking each other over. So the system’s next equilibrium temperature could be a long way from the starting point.

            We flicked the first domino by adding 50% more CO2 to the atmosphere. The positive feedback effects are the next dominos to fall and have already fallen, and they go round in cycles that we cannot stop, even if we stop emitting CO2 now.

            Ps I you want me to explain how GHGs warm the atmosphere in more detail is be happy to. Just ask. I can copy and paste an old comment where I did it in more detail! It’s not trivial but it’s not that complicated either.

            • Brin Jenkins

              What I would like to see it the interaction between the infra red photon and how it warms the atmosphere. The C02 molecule holds no heat instantly re radiating it. An experiment showing that CO2 has little effect was carried out by Adrian Vance and I will post it here.

              https://adrianvance.blogspot.ro/2017/07/the-co2-bomb.html

              A simple device assembled for less than three dollars, discounting the soda you consume, can end an era that has cost America more than $1 trillion! This bomb does not explode: It implodes the myth of “global warming.”

              The device sits on a south-facing window sill on a clear sunny day noon hour. It is a “2.5” liter soda bottle, rinsed clean of the sugary soda drink it contained. We added 325 milliliters of water as the volume was 2,725 milliliters and it now contains 2,400 milliliters of air so we can quantify everything about the air sample therein.

              The cap has two holes made by a quarter inch shaft Phillips screwdriver heated for 30 seconds over a candle. In one hole there is a standard laboratory thermometer with a range of -10° Celsius to +110º Celsius. The bottle has a foil collar shading the thermometer showing a 20º Celsius degrees room temperature. We will add CO2 to see what happens to the temperature of the air in the flask.

              Some scientists say the temperature will rise while others argue it will not or even fall! This device settles the “global warming” issue in the way of science: experimentally.

              Physical science shows with great precision what happens when we turn to “stoichiometry,” the quantitative relationships of the reactants as we have refined this work for over 2,000 years.

              For the trial we use small quantities of baking soda, sodium bicarbonate, and White Distilled Vinegar, 5% acetic acid, as both are pure food products. Baking soda is 100% sodium bicarbonate and White Distilled Vinegar is 5% acetic acid in water which means we can measure it very accurately.

              To determine the quantities of baking soda and vinegar for the trial we use chemical relationships based on the relative weights of the elements in the compounds in a chemical reaction to produce precise amounts of CO2. This is “stoichiometry.”

              Hydrogen, the lightest element, is defined as one atomic weight unit and has two atoms in each molecule so it has a “mole” weight of two grams and gas volume of 24,000 ml at 20 Celsius degrees. For a “mole” we use the number of atomic weight units in grams. The Mole or “Molar,” gas volume is the same for 32 grams of oxygen, O2. 28 grams of nitrogen, N2, or 44 grams of CO2, carbon dioxide. Every gas has a Molar volume of 24,000 ml at 20°C and each has the same number of molecules.

              Air is a mixture of three principle gases and eight “trace” gases, those with less than 1%. Trace gases are present, but of no consequence. CO2 is in that class with 0.04% and was officially insignificant in atmospheric physics until the Federal government wanted to tax and control it. They purchased significance for CO2 with your money: One million Dollars per year to the American Meteorological Society. That was is price. So much for integrity in science…

              Water vapor controls the atmosphere as it has about three percent presence in the lower atmosphere, under 5000 feet, where we live and have weather. It is one of the few gases absorbing infrared, IR, energy from sunlight and it is the only gas changing quantity in air as it can exist as a solid, liquid or gas in the range of temperatures on Earth. It absorbs infrared, IR, from sunlight far better than any gas in air. Nitrogen and oxygen capture so little infrared energy they are classified as “transparent” to IR.

              In the “bomb” we generate quantities of CO2 to add to the present day 400 parts per million, ppm, of CO2 using baking soda, NaHCO3, and White Distilled Vinegar, five percent acetic acid, CH3COOH, in the reaction:

              NaHCO3 + CH3COOH —> CH3COONa + H2O + CO2g

              84g 60g 82g 18g 44g

              Sodium bicarbonate, NaHCO3, plus acetic acid, CH3COOH, react to make sodium acetate, water and carbon dioxide gas, 44 g of CO2 is 24,000 ml, at 20°C, but we want only a small amount.

              Today air has 0.04% CO2, 400 parts per million, ppm, that is 9.60 ml per molar volume of air by 24,000 x 0.0004 = 9.60 ml or 0.96 ml/0.1 mole for our 1/10th molar volume bottle.

              The test will be to add amounts of CO2 that “warmers” say will heat the atmosphere. Rising temperature in the bottle will confirm their claim.

              The equation shows equal numbers of moles of baking soda and acetic acid make equal numbers of moles of sodium acetate, water and carbon dioxide.

              0.96 ml of CO2 is only 0.96 ml/24,000 ml/mole = 0.00004 moles of CO2 in our “bomb” naturally.

              A leading “warmer,” Dr. Joe Romm claims by 2100 AD we will exceed 1,000 ppm of CO2 at the rate we are increasing it now and this will make Earth unlivable. Dr. Steven Hawking, famous physicist, makes a similar claim and adds we will all have to leave Earth for Mars in 200 years having destroyed our planet by increasing CO2 in the atmosphere. We do this experimentally in our test flask to see if these two celebrated Ph.D. scientists are correct in warning, “We’re all gonna die!”

              5% White Distilled Vinegar has 50 grams of acetic acid in every liter of solution which is 50g/82g/mole = 0.61 mole/liter or 0.00061 mole/milliliter which would make 0.00061mole x 24,000 ml/mole = 14.6 ml of CO2 gas if we drop it into the flask with baking soda in solution so we have something to work with as there is a very easy way to get very small, accurate measures of chemicals as used in science and medicine.

              The physics of water is such that one drop is 1/20th milliliter if it is formed with a medicine dropper, soda straw, stick or leaf. This fact has made it possible for pharmacists and physicians to dispense medicines with great accuracy easily by counting drops.

              Where White Distilled Vinegar is 5% acetic acid, CH3CHOOH, or 50 grams/liter or 0.05g/ml, or 0.0025g/drop or 0.0025g/84g/mole = 0.0000298 mole that will produce 0.0000298 x 24,000 = 0.714 ml of CO2 per drop of vinegar we add to a baking soda solution in the flask. We can put a gram, 1/2 of 1/4 tsp, in the flask water to be sure of more than enough to react with the acid completely and entirely.

              Where 0.96 ml of CO2 in our flask is 400 ppm we can see that an additional 0.714 ml of CO2 will be 0.714/0.96 x 400 = 298 ppm of CO2 to the flask for a total of 400 + 298 = 698 ppm and per Drs. Romm and Hawkings we should see the temperature in the flask rise dramatically, but if we do this on a sunny day at noon when the sun’s heating effect is peaked nothing happens!

              If you set up the “bomb” flask in a sunny, south-facing window, you will see the temperature rise until noon. It stops, then declines with the waning solar output. This is the reason we normally have a “control” flask where nothing is added so we can see the normal, unchanged behavior of the control flask, but for the “bomb” demo it is unnecessary. In any case the 10:00 AM to noon rise is normal as solar radiation travels through less air.

              Let us continue and add another drop to go to 996 ppm which is where Dr. Romm has predicted America would be unlivable in 2100 AD if we continue to add CO2 at today’s rate. Adding several drops of CO2 fail to increase the temperate in the flask! Drs. Romm and Hawking have lied to us or they are not as smart as they think or we have been told! They certainly have not done the experimental work that would reveal the truth. Or, they have they known all along and been lying to us so they could get more grants for their alarming papers, pronouncements and media appearances, plus huge cash prize awards for “…saving the planet!” (Pardon me while I vomit.)

              We say this scam has been so pernicious and evil it has even bought off many of our most august institutions including the American Meteorological Society, AMS, National Science Foundation, NSA, National Geographic and more! While the AMS is not on record, in 1988 if someone had gone to them the day after Dr. James Hansen and Albert Gore, Jr. had made their historic presentation to the Joint Congressional Committee on Science and Technology alarming them with “CO2, we’re all gonna die!” and asked the AMS about CO2, they would have said “A gas with only 0.04% presence in the atmosphere is of no consequence,” but the Obama Administration bought them off with $1 million annual stipends. Such is the integrity of Washington, DC, “The full faith and credit of the United States government.”

              Let us continue to that point and add enough White Distilled Vinegar to get to the 1% lower limit standard the AMS adhered to for 100 years. All we have to do is add 30 more drops of White Distilled Vinegar to our flask and see the temperature falls! Why should this be?

              The Le Chatelier Principle of Equilibrium for gases is no longer taught in Physical Science, Chemistry and Physics, courses because it would expose this fraud. It says, ” If a system has a change in quantity,temperature or pressure, it shifts to minimize the change.” Thus adding CO2 reduces water vapor as it is the only gas that can leave the atmosphere in our temperatures.

              Water vapor does 99.8% of all atmospheric heating and like the air we breathe there is nothing politicians can do about it, but lie. When we add CO2 we drive water vapor out. CO2 is 1/7th the absorber of IR energy from sunlight as water vapor. Water is the only compound in air that can leave the atmosphere to maintain the physical balance. When CO2 is added water vapor leaves becoming clouds or rain; the heating function is reduced and the temperature falls. That is the imploding action of our “CO2 Bomb.” It can, and hopefully will destroy the greatest scam for money and power ever played in the time of man.

              Adrian Vance

              • MichaelR

                Ah, i see where you are going awry there. Yes, it’s true that the CO2 does not hold onto the energy. It does re-radiate it. But that absorption and re-radiation is called scattering and it has consequences. Here is the quick version. If you want more then ask.

                Imagine a no GHG scenario first. Then every IR photon that is emitted from the Earth’s surface goes directly into space.

                Now add GHG molecules. We have the same number of IR photons being emitted from the surface towards space. But now some of them get absorbed by GHGs. The GHG molecule then re-emits that IR photon but in a random direction. So that means roughly half of the time that is DOWN towards the Earth, not up into space. So let’s consider that IR photon is now heading downward. It might get to the ground or be re-absorbed and re-emitted. It’s like putting up pin ball bouncers in the atmosphere. You effectively create a partial barrier that intercepts and returns CO2 to the ground. This is measurable as something called back radiation. Think if it like a blanket. A blanket works be slowing heat transfer from under the blanket to outside the blanket. This is roughly analogous to how CO2 and other GHGs retard the escape of heat (in the form of IR) into space. Slow the escape of heat and the temperature under the blanket goes up.

                So what happens then is you get a build up of energy in the lower troposphere with all this excess IR interacting with the atmosphere and the ocean. In fact the ocean soaks up a lot of back radiation.

                As you have more IR pinging around under the GHG barrier you get a higher and higher temperature but it creates a greater pressure of IR trying to leave the lower atmosphere as well. More photons are present and “trying” to leave. The GHG level is (for now) fixed so eventually the increased amount of IR “trying to escape” overcomes the blocking effects of the GHGs and the amount of IR energy escaping once again comes into equilibrium with the amount of incoming energy from the sun, so the temperature stabilises, but is a higher temperature than before the GHGs.

                To give you an idea, it’s estimated that if there was NO CO2 in the atmosphere then the atmospheric temperature would be 30-35 degrees C lower (though that does factor in feedback effects).

                The mechanism I have described above also explains why the response to adding CO2 is not instant. The effect of adding CO2 is to upset the equilibrium. It takes a while (a few years) for the atmosphere to reach its new equilibrium temperature.

                As I say, if any of that does not make sense, please say and I will provide some more explanation and perhaps point you at some resources that explain it with pictures etc.

                However, be sure, the explanation you copied in above is NOT based on how GHGs actually work. It’s either just badly mistaken or else it’s trying to lead you astray with lots of explanation and chemistry that is pretty much entirely beside the point.

                • Brin Jenkins

                  I have several ares of concern here, but I thank you for your response.

                  1 The Earth being a Globe rather than a flat surface will not receive back radiation in a linear percentage.

                  2 The man made bit is 400 parts per million, a very small amount indeed, so the man made bit is probably inconsequential.

                  3 The planet is more probably cooling in real terms not heating. When thermometers are used the 50th of a degree I see quoted is not measurable it seems to be only computer models that say otherwise.

                  4 I worked in Electronics with the RAF, Solartron, Southern Instruments, Microcell and The Institute of Aviation I have a fair understanding of control systems and feed back. Positive leads to runaway instability and Nature would not allow this to exist for millions of years, it would have flipped and found another equilibrium.

                  The Green House effect, have you seen the old experiment 200 years ago in the USA with two green houses. One was clad in glass and the other in Basalt Crystal which blocks IR? There was no difference in temperatures so perhaps the green house is less understood than thought. Unfortunately I had a system failure and lost my data on that one.

                  No one wants to see waste, efficiency is all important and my interest would be in research reusing energy, I see gravity as being our best bet for energy storage. Almost as good as the rubber band is on a small scale.

                  • MichaelR2

                    For some reason my comments get marked as spam on this site repeatedly so am trying again.

                    Sensible questions. Here goes.
                    1. Yes, its not a flat surface but if you look at the geometry, GHGs in the lower troposphere will still create a significant amount of back radiation that is headed downwards. Not 50% but not far off. It still has the effect I described.
                    2. It’s not a matter of absolute amount, it’s a matter of proportional change. 400ppm of VX nerve agent in the air will kill you stone dead. Small amounts of some agents can have large effects. Remember we are only talking about small relative changes in atmospheric temperature as a result of CO2 alone. The usual figure quoted is a 1 degree increase in temperature for a doubling of CO2. But the positive feedback effects magnify that effect greatly. That is why the IPCC projections have a central projection of about 3 degrees above pre industrial temps by the end of the century.
                    3. There is no evidence of this at all. Temperature series going back to the 1800s show warming of about 1 degree C. This is not based on individual measurements but on many many measurements. This change is way outside the margin of error.
                    4. The global temperature does indeed sometimes take very large detours away from long term averages. Indeed this is precisely the problem. The Earth was in a long term cooling trend for about the last 8000 years, right up until the beginning of the 20th century. Temperatures have already exceeded the maximum the maximum observed during that recent Holocene period, and that turnaround took 100 years vs 8000 years under natural factors.
                    The feedback loops eventually stabilise out but at a very different temperature to where you started. I.e. outgassing of CO2 from the oceans peters out fairly quickly once the ocean content of CO2 drops off. Ice melt effects stop once all the ice has melted etc.
                    If you look back in the geological record you find periods much colder than now but also much hotter than now. There is some interesting stuff about the large swings that can occur here
                    https://en.m.wikipedia.org/
                    The hot house events in the past happened under conditions of much lower solar insolation because the sun is getting hotter as it gets older. How was the Earth many degrees hotter in the Cambrian than now even under a much weaker sun? Answer, lots of CO2 in the atmosphere.
                    I don’t want to be wasting time and resources on a non problem either. But this is not a no problem. It is likely to be the most serious issue that your kids and grandkids face, indeed future generations for centuries. If sea levels rise by a few feet that will cause catastrophic damage to thousands of coastal cities and towns. If, as projected, fresh water becomes more scarce and agriculture in hot countries becomes impossible then expect mass migration on a scale never before witnessed. That means literally billions of people on the move. It means war. It means famine. It means the destruction of many of the wonders and diversity of nature that we take for granted on our planet. Modern humans have never lived with temperatures 3 degrees higher than now, the planet cannot sustain 7 billion people in the long term as things are right now. With technology and better agriculture we might fix that. But with 9+ billion people on a planet 3 degrees hotter it will be truly catastrophic. We have already seen 1 degree change. This has had visible and measurable effects already both for human populations and for the natural world eg bleached Great Barrier Reef, melted glaciers etc. The latest research says if we stopped emitting CO2 today we already have another 0.5 degrees temperature increase baked in. And remember this is not fringe science. This is effectively all of the scientific establishment, globally. All governments except 1 have accepted this as fact, and even the US government is actually ignoring its own scientists as well as the US Academy of Sciences, NASA and NOAA.
                    What is happening is a rear guard action by fossil fuel industry lobbies and groups who hate the idea of governments doing anything on principle trying to concoct scientific controversy where, among scientists and scientific bodies, there is effectively universal agreement. They have been shown to be wrong over and over. None of their studies stand up to scrutiny so don’t get published. It’s like cancer and smoking all over again, but this time the stakes are much much much higher.

  10. G mcgowen

    Please delete the word “scientists”. They have nothing to do with science. They should study something much more important. Let’s say “how much gas comes from a tsetse fly before and then after sex.

  11. Russ Wood

    My thoughts on this is that it was all a scheme by the team to get the taxpayer to pay for a year’s worth of lunches!

0 Pings & Trackbacks