'SANDWICHES Now Blamed For Global Warming'.....No, SERIOUSLY
And for as astounding as that claim sounds, the OP-er didn't see fit to provide a link to the study in which ostensibly that was among the findings.....
There are at least half a dozen links to the study - if you would bother to READ.
In the OP, there is no link to the study.
View attachment 173900
The only link in the OP is one that goes to the following webpage (
Redirect Notice):
View attachment 173901
Thank you. That link appears (presumably) in post 70, not in the OP. You will note that I wrote:
And for as astounding as [the thread title's] claim sounds, the OP-er didn't see fit to provide a link to the study in which ostensibly that was among the findings.....
It takes one not to the study, but to a news article about the study. That said, the article does provide the name of and link to the study.
Following that link one is, indeed, taken to the study.
Having read the study, I know now that the thread title is every bit as sensational/inflammatory as
I alluded to in my initial post about it. (Read the remarks below to understand why, though if you read the article to which you linked, you shouldn't need to.) There is a huge difference between "sandwiches being
blamed for global warming" and "sandwich production, selling and disposal of by products of both
contributing to global warming."
The difference is both qualitative and quantitative, and anyone who cares about discursive integrity, anyone who aims to faithfully represent another's remarks and who isn't a complete idiot, would summarize the study's overall findings using the diction found in this thread's title, or for that matter, as is done in the main sentence of the OP wherein, again, the author depicts the sandwich, not sandwich production, etc., as the "culprit," saying, "
the triangular meals could be responsible for the equivalent annual carbon emissions of 8.6 million cars in Britain alone." [1]
Note:
- Frankly, I also find even the doubt-casting nature of the "could be responsible for" verbiage disingenuous because after reviewing the researcher's methodology, I see no basis for thinking there are material misstatements in the estimated carbon footprint of making, selling, etc. sandwiches and, in turn, thinking that those misstatements result from research/analytical methodology the researchers used to produce those estimates. Moreover, neither you nor the OP have provided any basis, let alone a sound/cogent one, for one to take exception with the researchers' methodology.
if you would bother to READ.
Reading the study, one finds that
its authors do not, as this thread's title asserts,
blame global warming on sandwiches, but rather that
they quantify the global warming impact of entire process of making, selling, storing, transporting, and disposing of waste products associated with sandwiches.
What the study does is identify, in consideration of 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 the carbon footprint of making sandwiches -- the carbon footprint of sandwiches, both home-made and pre-packaged.
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 one's own sandwiches at home could reduce carbon emissions by a half, compared to ready-made equivalents, because the largest contributor to a sandwich’s carbon footprint is agricultural production and processing of their ingredients, which, depending on the type, can account for ~37% to ~67% of CO2 eq. for producing, transporting, making available for sale and processing the waste associated with 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 making sandwiches 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 periods to reduce waste.
(
Source)
The study was published in
The Journal of Sustainable Production and Consumption, which is the journal of the
Institution of Chemical Engineers.
That journal uses the
single-blind method of peer review.
