ezzra Posted March 24, 2015 Share Posted March 24, 2015 I beg to differ, my wife is omitting the highest level of smelly carbon cloud, just come to our bedroom for one night, you'll never want to breath again.... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
maidee Posted March 24, 2015 Share Posted March 24, 2015 and in the meantime, you sit with your ass in that plane that pollutes and pollutes , much more than the little chicken you will dump not so much later in the toilet, emitting more greenhouse gasses Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
alanrchase Posted March 24, 2015 Share Posted March 24, 2015 and in the meantime, you sit with your ass in that plane that pollutes and pollutes , much more than the little chicken you will dump not so much later in the toilet, emitting more greenhouse gasses Wonderful. Trying to think of more to say but may take battery power and introduce more harmful emissions into the world. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
cranberry Posted March 24, 2015 Share Posted March 24, 2015 Is it April 1 already? If the greenies want to reduce CO2, they sequester themselves underground. CO2 is food for plants, not a dangerous gas. Water vapor is a much more effective green house gas. If you must speak, speak only that which improves upon the quality of silence - Mahatma Ghandi 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
canuckamuck Posted March 24, 2015 Share Posted March 24, 2015 So a 500 gram plate of food is giving off 1.32 Kg of carbon? I guess they are still cooking with charcoal on Thai Flights? If you include the food they gave the chicken which is farmed with fertilizer, made from oil. Transport the chicken with the truck. Serve them in some plastic that ends in the trash. The 500 gram also travel from Thailand to USA in the airplane. 1.32 kg carbon is realistic. And why stop there why not determine how many generations of chickens were required to get to today's chicken. Thousands of years of chickens to produce that one tinfoil tray of reheated chicken. Which represents probably 100 million tons of carbon. But on the contrary - how much carbon did the plants which became the food consume in their life span? Maybe those chickens are saving the world by forcing us to grow all those carbon eating plants? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
grumbleweed Posted March 24, 2015 Share Posted March 24, 2015 Is it April 1 already? If the greenies want to reduce CO2, they sequester themselves underground. CO2 is food for plants, not a dangerous gas. Water vapor is a much more effective green house gas. Not difficult to see who the fool is So few words yet so much stupidity. Where climate change is concerned, water vapour is a double edged sword, although I think trying to explain the albedo effect of water vapour to the author of this little gem would be akin to playiing a violin to a buffalo. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
cruisemonkey Posted March 24, 2015 Share Posted March 24, 2015 (edited) That's great to know! However, the methane produced when I fart after eating airline chicken massaman curry sort of cancels out the 'low footprint'. Edited March 24, 2015 by cruisemonkey Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
alanrchase Posted March 24, 2015 Share Posted March 24, 2015 That's great to know! However, the methane produced when I fart after eating airline chicken massaman curry sort of cancels out the 'low footprint'. Hope you cover that up with a cough and denial. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
loong Posted March 24, 2015 Share Posted March 24, 2015 "Each dish of stir fried chicken with basil leaves emits 1,320 grams of greenhouse gas" I know that I am probably being stupid, but how do you weigh a gas? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
alanrchase Posted March 24, 2015 Share Posted March 24, 2015 "Each dish of stir fried chicken with basil leaves emits 1,320 grams of greenhouse gas" I know that I am probably being stupid, but how do you weigh a gas? Had one the other day. No fart. Perhaps I am a carrier? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Daniel Ingalls Posted March 24, 2015 Share Posted March 24, 2015 This is pure nonsense. Food is not prepared on the plane, it is precooked, and heated in warm carts before the trays are served to the passengers. It may have the highest carbon footprints in the kitchen at the catering center, but not on the plane. The only sign will be a little steam H20. And that I doubt, as well most of the food trays are room temperature. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
alanrchase Posted March 24, 2015 Share Posted March 24, 2015 What? Carbon footprint from a certain dish of food? Baked beans are off the menu now to save the world. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
nottocus Posted March 24, 2015 Share Posted March 24, 2015 Main thing is it tastes good. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
alanrchase Posted March 24, 2015 Share Posted March 24, 2015 Does the fried egg affect things? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Emster23 Posted March 24, 2015 Share Posted March 24, 2015 Amazing Thailand. You could assemble the best team of comedy writers in the West and they still couldn't come anywhere near the stuff that is pumped out as news here. Beyond the pale. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Howitzer Posted March 24, 2015 Share Posted March 24, 2015 Since this isn't farang food you will hear all self righteous comments condemning this dish. The minute a farang dish is shown to be emitting the highest carbon footprint all the farang will complain and say so what we'll just do it screw the environment showcasing their hypocrisy in which self righteous admonishment is only allowed when it doesn't involve one's culture. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
chooka Posted March 24, 2015 Share Posted March 24, 2015 These must be first class meals. I have only ever seen disgusting fish and noodles. I can't stand fish and the smell is overpowering, what I would give for something other than bloody fish on Thai Airways. . Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
hawker9000 Posted March 24, 2015 Share Posted March 24, 2015 "The carbon footprint on cooking is measured from greenhouse gas emitted from cooking, production and transportation of ingredients, work process related to the dishes and waste disposal." And what about the carbon footprint of the lab testing, printing, production, transportation, work processes and disposal involved in making & applying the labels specifying the carbon footprint of the chicken? Lol. If there weren't public money behind it, this would be comedy club material. Honestly. Today it's basil chicken. Tomorrow a multi-span, 8-lane, double-decker suspension bridge to nowhere. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
jacko45k Posted March 24, 2015 Share Posted March 24, 2015 I can think of a few other dishes that cause some gas emissions too. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TomYumpoochai Posted March 25, 2015 Share Posted March 25, 2015 Just stop serving chicken on the 45 year old jumbos and it should balance out the co2 produced by those inefficient engines....simples Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
rsokolowski Posted March 25, 2015 Share Posted March 25, 2015 That is totally useless information. The world is emitting tons of greenhouse gasses (natural and manmade) and someone cares about which Thai food dish has the largest carbon footprint? The entire world would need to stop using fossil fuels today (no cars, no planes, no shipping, no heating) in order to make a dent on the amount of greenhouse gases in the atmosphere. Even with the entire world living an Amish lifestyle there would not be noticable changes to the climate for decades. None of this is going to happen so eat up, it doesn't make one bit of difference in anyway and is one ofthe dumbest bits of information I have seen in some time. 2 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
rsokolowski Posted March 25, 2015 Share Posted March 25, 2015 Is it April 1 already? If the greenies want to reduce CO2, they sequester themselves underground. CO2 is food for plants, not a dangerous gas. Water vapor is a much more effective green house gas. Not difficult to see who the fool is So few words yet so much stupidity. Where climate change is concerned, water vapour is a double edged sword, although I think trying to explain the albedo effect of water vapour to the author of this little gem would be akin to playiing a violin to a buffalo. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Local Drunk Posted March 25, 2015 Share Posted March 25, 2015 I feel like such a gross polluter! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Local Drunk Posted March 25, 2015 Share Posted March 25, 2015 (edited) The most ridiculous knee jerk PR reaction from an airline that should have crashed many years ago. It doesn't make me want to fly them. There I am in sitting in economy class on a 747 flying over the Pacific and read about how big the pollution footprint of my on board meal is? Don't offer it or serve it. Edited March 25, 2015 by Local Drunk Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Local Drunk Posted March 25, 2015 Share Posted March 25, 2015 (edited) What about farting on board? With a few hundred passengers that could get serious... They should have a look at it. Edited March 25, 2015 by Local Drunk Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
alanrchase Posted March 25, 2015 Share Posted March 25, 2015 Just stop serving chicken on the 45 year old jumbos and it should balance out the co2 produced by those inefficient engines....simples Used to have to travel internal on a Tri Star. Undercarriage locked down for the flight. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
rakman Posted March 29, 2015 Share Posted March 29, 2015 Is it April 1 already? If the greenies want to reduce CO2, they sequester themselves underground. CO2 is food for plants, not a dangerous gas. Water vapor is a much more effective green house gas. Isn't H20 a food for plants also? Is water considered a food for humans? CO2 + Sunlight = O2 + C (for plant building) But H2O isn't demonized as a green house gas. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
rakman Posted March 29, 2015 Share Posted March 29, 2015 Is it April 1 already? If the greenies want to reduce CO2, they sequester themselves underground. CO2 is food for plants, not a dangerous gas. Water vapor is a much more effective green house gas. Not difficult to see who the fool is So few words yet so much stupidity. Where climate change is concerned, water vapour is a double edged sword, although I think trying to explain the albedo effect of water vapour to the author of this little gem would be akin to playiing a violin to a buffalo. Right quick to fire off an ad hominem attack of the AGW acolyte crowd. I can tell you never took basic organic chemistry. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
rakman Posted March 29, 2015 Share Posted March 29, 2015 Is it April 1 already? If the greenies want to reduce CO2, they sequester themselves underground. CO2 is food for plants, not a dangerous gas. Water vapor is a much more effective green house gas. epic ignorence And nice spelling from an AGW acolyte, who also never studied basic organic chemistry. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
rakman Posted March 29, 2015 Share Posted March 29, 2015 (edited) Is it April 1 already? If the greenies want to reduce CO2, they sequester themselves underground. CO2 is food for plants, not a dangerous gas. Water vapor is a much more effective green house gas. Yes that's true, {well almost, there are plenty of studies that show too much CO2 is actually bad for plants}, if only there were enough plants to absorb the amounts we are pumping out. Mind that would mean an end to all the deforestation, destruction of greenbelt areas man is prone to. Dear lord, who wants to do that. Crank up the A/C while I drive 400 metres to buy some piece of crap I don't need. Consume. Consume. Consume. True, to much of anything is bad, like consuming too much di-hydrogen oxide will kill you. Actual peer reviewed studies have shown even at 4 times the current atmospheric CO2 plants do very well. One example, (which hasn't reported on 900 ppm higher concentration) Percent Dry Weight (Biomass) Increases for 300, 600 and 900 ppmIncreases in the Air's CO2 Concentration: Oryza sativa L. (Rice) Journal References ["] Experimental Conditions 300 ppm 600 ppm 900 ppm Baker et al. (1990) vats, growth chambers 78% 53% Baker et al. (1990) vats, growth chambers 34% 83% Baker et al. (1992) vats, growth chambers 18% 26% Imai et al. (1985) pots (12 kg soil) 29% Khan and Madsen (1986) containers (6.1 liters) 16% 29% Morison and Gifford (1984) pots (3.2 kg soil) 38% Teramura et al. (1990) pots (0.5 liters to 20 liters) 18% Ziska and Teramura (1992) pots (20 liters) 33% Ziska and Teramura (1992) pots (20 liters, 2 plants) 19% Edited March 29, 2015 by rakman Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
.png.3b3332cc2256ad0edbc2fe9404feeef0.png)
Recommended Posts
Create an account or sign in to comment
You need to be a member in order to leave a comment
Create an account
Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!
Register a new accountSign in
Already have an account? Sign in here.
Sign In Now