Is your sandwich bad for the environment?

January 24, 2018, University of Manchester
Credit: CC0 Public Domain

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 of , 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 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 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.

Explore further: Sandwiches are a major contributor to dietary sodium intake

More information: Namy Espinoza-Orias et al, Understanding the impact on climate change of convenience food: Carbon footprint of sandwiches, Sustainable Production and Consumption (2017). DOI: 10.1016/j.spc.2017.12.002

Related Stories

Tuna and egg salad sandwiches are recalled

August 8, 2007

The U.S. Food and Drug Administration announced the recall of 4,219 units of Cloud's Tuna Salad and Egg Salad Sandwiches due to possible contamination.

Recommended for you

Evidence of earliest life on Earth disputed

October 17, 2018

When Australian scientists presented evidence in 2016 of life on Earth 3.7 billon years ago—pushing the record back 220 million years—it was a big deal, influencing even the search for life on Mars.

Arctic greening thaws permafrost, boosts runoff

October 17, 2018

A new collaborative study has investigated Arctic shrub-snow interactions to obtain a better understanding of the far north's tundra and vast permafrost system. Incorporating extensive in situ observations, Los Alamos National ...

Arctic ice sets speed limit for major ocean current

October 17, 2018

The Beaufort Gyre is an enormous, 600-mile-wide pool of swirling cold, fresh water in the Arctic Ocean, just north of Alaska and Canada. In the winter, this current is covered by a thick cap of ice. Each summer, as the ice ...

103 comments

Adjust slider to filter visible comments by rank

Display comments: newest first

Bart_A
5 / 5 (3) Jan 24, 2018
Very strange article. Any action we take (including breathing) has an "effect" on the environment. Why the focus and obsession on sandwiches? What will be next? Potatoes?

What it interesting in that good-ol homemade sandwiches and 1/2 less energy intensive that buying at a store.

Budelski
5 / 5 (1) Jan 25, 2018
Sorry, I have to comment on this. The article stated: "The sandwich with the lowest carbon emission equivalent is a simple home-made favourite, ham and cheese."

This can't be the case, meat and diary products have a much higher (carbon) footprint than vegetarian or vegan products.

Do yourself and the environment a favour and take a nice healthy strawberry-, blueberry, or blackberry compote, make your own humus or put some organic honey or maple sirop on your toast or pancake.
MR166
2.7 / 5 (7) Jan 25, 2018
No wonder the western world is so depressed, on drugs and committing suicide. If you are an impressionable child or teen all you hear is "You are killing the planet". Everything that you do including making a sandwich and exhaling is harmful. Drinking milk and eating meat is inhumane. It seems that this new eviro-centric green religion is just as guilt ridden as all of the previous religions.
MR166
2.1 / 5 (7) Jan 25, 2018
The amount of money the West wastes on frivolous studies like this is horrifying. I ask you, if you perform useless research that benefits no one is that more harmful than a farmer producing real food?
MR166
2.1 / 5 (7) Jan 25, 2018
Why should these children even bother to get up in the morning? According to their teachers and 97% of all scientists the planet will be dead in 20 years because their mother took them to school in a SUV and packed them a lunch with , oh the horror of it all, milk and meat instead of a hunk of kale.
drrobodog
3 / 5 (4) Jan 25, 2018
and packed them a lunch with

Lies, she gave them money to buy a lunch.

oh the horror of it all, milk and meat

Ironically the closest the closest thing to a horror movie scene is probably a slaughter house.

instead of a hunk of kale.

Now now, much more on the menu than just kale.
Captain Stumpy
5 / 5 (4) Jan 25, 2018
@mr
According to their teachers and 97% of all scientists the planet will be dead in 20 years
links/references
I've never seen this published in any journal - talk about the misrepresentation of science!
The amount of money the West wastes on frivolous studies like this is horrifying. I ask you, if you perform useless research that benefits no one...
perhaps you should actually read before commenting?
... from the abstract:
Sandwiches are ubiquitous food items and yet little is known about their environmental impacts.
...
The greatest improvement opportunities lie in reducing post-consumer waste; however, these are most difficult to realise as they involve changing consumer behaviour.
so it is neither frivolous nor a waste as the topic is typically not even considered by most - therefore this breakdown is useful in calculations and more

I can go on, but it's apparent you won't read any of it
MR166
1 / 5 (4) Jan 25, 2018
https://www.scien...g-point/

No sense making any long term plans there Stumpy we are all doomed. I won't waste the cloud storage bits posting the 1000s of other like this.
MR166
1 / 5 (3) Jan 25, 2018
Hummm, why is ti that I have never seen a paper on the carbon footprint of growing pot? Sorry man I have been too stoned to get around to writing that paper.
MR166
3 / 5 (2) Jan 25, 2018
Makita I think that you are barking up the wrong tree if you are waiting for cold fusion to be proven to be a viable energy source. Hot fusion perhaps, but even that might never be economically feasible.
MR166
2 / 5 (2) Jan 25, 2018
"Ironically the closest the closest thing to a horror movie scene is probably a slaughter house."

Drrobodog if you choose not to eat meat on an ethical basis more power to you.

Just don't try to tell me that I am helping to end the world if I opt to have a cheeseburger.
Noumenon
1.8 / 5 (10) Jan 25, 2018
Nothing surprises me about the absurdity of this "study". It is in fact how liberal progressives think, which is to effectively grant science autonomous justification in enacting social engineering of human behaviour with the illusion of free choice. An associate of the Obama Administration, Cass Susstein, wrote a book on the subject called, "nudge". This is their utopian dream, central planning of human behaviour and economics,... to save gaia.

The greatest threat to personal liberty is the liberal progressive and their army of statisticians and "researchers".
Noumenon
2.5 / 5 (8) Jan 25, 2018


"California Considers $1,000 Fine for Waiters Offering Plastic Straws". There is no limit to the Liberal progressives lunacy.
MR166
3 / 5 (2) Jan 25, 2018
Mackita I am a firm believer in the capitalist , not crony capitalist , system and its ability fund and profit from new developments. If Rossi's cold fusion was really feasible he would have tractor trailers full of investment money lined up around the block in front of his lab.
MR166
3 / 5 (2) Jan 25, 2018
Noumenon that is pretty much typical of CA. Yet the government will be glad to give you free needles and syringes.
Captain Stumpy
5 / 5 (3) Jan 25, 2018
@mr
https://www.scientificamerican.com/article

No sense making any long term plans there Stumpy
[sic]

...Aaaaand I called it on the nose!

1- your link is to an *opinion* piece, not to a scientific study (opinion =/= science)

2- in your own link I call your attention to the 6th paragraph which states
The scientists say it's likely -- though not certain -- that Earth is close to another wholesale transformation, but when that will happen and whether it will be irreversible isn't clear
so again, you've proven that not only is there no scientific paper calling your 20-year extinction event, but also that you won't read any of whatever it is you will link for your own point (let alone anything else)

of course, your argument is a political one from personal bias and delusional belief as well, but that is another point entirely, mind you - otherwise, you would be linking journal studies and not opinion articles

Captain Stumpy
5 / 5 (1) Jan 25, 2018
http://reason.com/blog/2018/01/25/california-bill-would-criminalize-restau. There is no limit to the Liberal progressives lunacy.
@Nou
I had hoped you were joking or that there was some misleading text in the law someone misunderstood or misrepresented ... but unfortunately, your post is legit!

https://leginfo.l...80AB1884

Un-F*cking believable!

so what about waiters who mark drinks with straws so as not to screw up an order?
I suppose it's OK to just hand everyone the tray and say "yall sort this sh*t out"! LMFAO

I am going to start selling multi-use bamboo and or glass straws to Cali!
MR166
1 / 5 (3) Jan 25, 2018
Capt. my point is that the public is being fed a nonstop 24/7 diet of CO2 induced apocalypse by the media, governments and the UN. What does it matter if it is not in a scientific journal? It is still being sold to the public as truth and most of science is doing little or nothing to set the record straight because panic is buttering their bread.
MR166
1 / 5 (2) Jan 25, 2018
At least when I was a kid all you had to do was to put out your campfires and keep Smokey the Bear happy. Now from pre-K on up it becomes your responsibility to save the earth and have no impact otherwise you are bad person. That is a heavy load to carry for an adult let alone a child.
MR166
1 / 5 (2) Jan 25, 2018
We are having serious mental health issues in the US.

There have been 11 school shootings in 23 days.
People are eating Tide pods in order to gain recognition.
Drug usage and ODs are staggering.

My personal opinion (for what it's worth ) is that children and teens spend way to much time without seeing a parent. Parents are working and have little energy left to spend quality time with their children. I know for a fact that the very young when left at day care become depressed due to the lack of a parent. Then when a little older the state becomes their nanny via pre-K. BTW it has been proven that pre-K does not help academic achievement in later life. Thus it is little more than expensive state run baby sitting that does more harm than good.
Captain Stumpy
5 / 5 (1) Jan 25, 2018
@mr
Capt. my point is that the public is being fed a nonstop 24/7 diet of CO2 induced apocalypse by the media, governments and the UN
and my point is that there is no reason for you to perpetuate a blatant lie just because you're too f*cking lazy (or whatever) to actually read the facts - meaning: the science
If you want to believe a lie - that is one thing. all the more power to you
however, as I just pointed out - you can't even get the facts straight in a link that you claim supports your position because (and I predicted it above) you didn't even read it
What does it matter if it is not in a scientific journal?
becuase you're perpetuating a lie - not a fact

an *opinion* is not equivalent to science

that isn't a matter of debate, and yet you tend to perpetuate the lie simply because you really, really want to believe it to be true and it's part of your political beliefs

that is also known as religious fanaticism, BTW
Captain Stumpy
5 / 5 (1) Jan 25, 2018
@mr cont'd
It is still being sold to the public as truth and most of science is doing little or nothing to set the record straight because panic is buttering their bread
yet another blatant lie
the facts are: if left without attempting to make a change, we will cause harm (potentially irreversible)
that isn't debatable either (as I've provided studies numerous times to you regarding this point, I am not linking them again for the moment)
moreover, this is no different than pollution of any other kind: wallowing in it is not conducive to long happy health

it can be best demonstrated by urine: you *can* drink it straight from your own tap in a pinch to survive, but if you continue on as your only source of hydration you will eventually kill yourself

that isn't "doom and gloom" - that is a matter of proven validated science
Captain Stumpy
5 / 5 (1) Jan 25, 2018
@mr
It is still being sold to the public as truth
it is a probable truth -statistically speaking
for the uneducated (or politically blinded) - that means that if left as is we will cause a hazardous condition that has very bad potential situations that are likely to occur

which brings me to the final point:
one way of changing policy is to educate the public
*that* is why you see so much of it in the news

that and because people like you keep perpetuating a blatant lie because you fear change and the potential threat to your lifestyle... all of which is a political argument hell bent on making you out to be the fall guy

if this were buying nonexistent bridges, you could prosecute for fraud, but because it's a belief and political argument it seems to be OK to be a complete idiot in the face of overwhelming evidence proving you wrong

worse still - we've had this conversation before and you STILL ignore the facts for the lie!

why is that, really?
Captain Stumpy
5 / 5 (1) Jan 25, 2018
At least when I was a kid all you had to do was to put out your campfires and keep Smokey the Bear happy
bullsh*t argument
you also didn't likely learn about AIDS until older, so should you just ignore that data and f*ck every prostitute in the area bareback because you like the feel?
That is a heavy load to carry for an adult let alone a child
1- children are smarter than you give them credit for being
2- evolution
3- educating them about AIDS is wrong too, then? should we forget all about sex education too? where do you draw the line on educating them about potentially dangerous things in their future?

.

the last post is irrelevant
just because you know about more volcanoes and earthquakes doesn't mean the biblical revelation is occurring... it could just mean you're hearing more news faster

education isn't a bad thing but teaching a lie *is*
http://www.drexel...nge.ashx
guptm
not rated yet Jan 26, 2018
The earth can be in its most natural state without the intelligent life. Intelligence (that includes human) is the culprit.
Noumenon
2 / 5 (4) Jan 26, 2018
The earth can be in its most natural state without the intelligent life. Intelligence (that includes human) is the culprit.


Human intelligence is not natural then? Seems humans are a product of the earth,.... and therefore everything humans do is natural, along with any adaptation and migration necessary on account of human life.

people like you [....] fear change and the potential threat to your lifestyle


If you mean 'conservatives fear change', this is a misnomer do to conflating and overly simplifying the political ideology with the word 'conservative'. Conservatives advocate free market capitalism and competition and egoism, of which there is no other force that has brought such immense economic and social evolution, therefore conservatives are all about change. It is the anti-capitalists who are in fear of the results of freedom,.... "wealth inequality",.... and seek to regulate capitalistic evolution and change.

MR166
5 / 5 (1) Jan 26, 2018
Nourmenon you are 100% correct when you say that Progressives fear individual freedom more than government control. They do not have a very high opinion of individuals and their ability to make beneficial decisions.
MR166
5 / 5 (1) Jan 26, 2018
Worse yet Progressives are demanding that the state become their parents and are declining to take personal responsibility for their own lives.

https://www.zeroh...products
Captain Stumpy
not rated yet Jan 26, 2018
If you mean 'conservatives fear change', this is a misnomer do to conflating and overly simplifying the political ideology with the word 'conservative'
@Nou
No, I do not mean "conservative". I specifically meant MR and his fears - and this is supported by his historical posts against AGW and climate change (this is not the first time he has posted in a climate change article)
It is the anti-capitalists who are in fear of the results of freedom,.... "wealth inequality",.... and seek to regulate capitalistic evolution and change
1- for the record: I'm not anti-capitalist

2- it is a misnomer to conflate and overly simplify political ideology

3- what about the ignorant? (there is a huge list of those who fear the results of freedom, BTW)

4- those who "seek to regulate capitalistic evolution and change" may also just be seeking to control others (just like a large number of religious leaders)
Captain Stumpy
not rated yet Jan 26, 2018
@Nou - had to comment on this separately:
Conservatives advocate free market capitalism and competition and egoism, of which there is no other force that has brought such immense economic and social evolution, therefore conservatives are all about change
bullsh*t
allow me to explain by the following definition
Conservatism is a political and social philosophy promoting traditional social institutions in the context of culture and civilization. The central tenets of conservatism include tradition,...
Moreover, no political party is about "change" - like a religion, a political party is about power, influence and control
period
full stop

your own comment is a misnomer to conflate and overly simplify political ideology due to your own ideology and biases

Noumenon
2 / 5 (4) Jan 26, 2018
Mackita I am a firm believer in the capitalist , not crony capitalist , system and its ability fund and profit from new developments.
The capitalism and free market is not any warranty of steady-state progress by itself, once it passes the introductory Wild West epoch after introduction of new technology.


One would think, given the threat rhetoric of AGW-alarmists, that the political left would strongly advocate a Manhattan'esque-Project for nuclear research, however their first thought is social engineering and government regulation, so they do not advocate solutions that have the potential of competing with that political ideology. Indeed, their mentality requires not one but two very difficult problems to be resolved, acceptance of socialistic elements by society and the technological problem of scalable alternative energy.
Noumenon
1 / 5 (3) Jan 26, 2018
@Stumpy,...

- The political right advocates free market capitalism, with minimal government regulation.

- The political left advocates regulation of free market capitalism and many are anti-capitalism.

Therefore, it stands to reason that the right advocates the immense social and economic CHANGES and evolution that is directly on account of capitalism,.... while the political left have expressed fear of the results of freedom as expressed in capitalism,... i.e. wealth inequality. These are facts.

My original point was to challenge the notion that the political right are "conservative" as in 'reluctance to change'.
Captain Stumpy
not rated yet Jan 26, 2018
@Nou
Therefore, it stands to reason ...
stopped there because you're conflating and overly simplifying political ideology due to your own ideology and biases

ahem - you stated
it stands to reason that the right advocates the immense social and economic CHANGES and evolution that is directly on account of capitalism
so why does the political right tend to fear homosexual rights and gay marriage?

the constitution (and current law) state it's illegal to persecute due to sex, sexual orientation, race (blah blah blah) and the predominant arguments against their rights being enforced are from the conservatives and the "right" (see definition)

even in the face of a specific hate crimes federal law, conservatives fear a potential source of income and market diversity which guarantees increased revenue

that isn't logical

therefore your argument is invalidated by history and *fact*, which you ignore for your biased interpretations
Captain Stumpy
not rated yet Jan 26, 2018
@nou cont'd
My original point was to challenge the notion that the political right are "conservative" as in 'reluctance to change'
and my point was that you're doing the same thing you claim others typically do, which is (in your own words)
this is a misnomer do to conflating and overly simplifying the political ideology with the word 'conservative'
you can't have it both ways

You also can't argue that most "right" tend to be conservatives

so my point is: quit using political arguments when the science is far more specific and utilised to make a point that is able to be either validated or invalidated

politics is no different than religion
period full stop

i said it above
like a religion, a political party is about power, influence and control
period
full stop
see?

MR166
3 / 5 (2) Jan 26, 2018
"One would think, given the threat rhetoric of AGW-alarmists, that the political left would strongly advocate a Manhattan'esque-Project for nuclear research, however their first thought is social engineering and government regulation, so they do not advocate solutions that have the potential of competing with that political ideology."

What a great point!!!! They shun new research into safe nuclear power because it might solve the problem thus not affording them the power to limit individual freedoms and create a one world government. Where as the banning of CO2 emissions can result in a world tax scheme and central control. Renewables on the other hand opened up the possibilities of a whole new government bureaucracy and funding for the well connected corporations.
Noumenon
1 / 5 (3) Jan 26, 2018


stopped there because you're conflating and overly simplifying political ideology due to your own ideology and biases


Wrong. I'm stating facts of political philosophy, which are not under debate. A bias would be in the application of a given political ideology, not in the definition. I didn't read the rest of your posts.

Captain Stumpy
not rated yet Jan 26, 2018
A bias would be in the application of a given political ideology, not in the definition. I didn't read the rest of your posts.
thank you for proving my point
Noumenon
1 / 5 (3) Jan 26, 2018
A bias would be in the application of a given political ideology, not in the definition. I didn't read the rest of your posts.
thank you for proving my point


I didn't do any such thing.

You're just confused and think my political ideological bias causes me to define my political ideology. Even you must see the absurdity and recursiveness of this?

The political right and political left as described above are not under debate, and I have no interest in debating something so elementary.
Captain Stumpy
not rated yet Jan 26, 2018
@Nou - had to continue this for others to see your "bias"
Wrong. I'm stating facts of political philosophy, which are not under debate
so let's review your political "facts" -
My original point was to challenge the notion that the political right are "conservative" as in 'reluctance to change'
the "factual definition" is:
In the United States, the Right includes both economic and social conservatives. In Europe, economic conservatives are usually considered liberal and the Right includes nationalists, nativist opposition to immigration, religious conservatives and historically a significant presence of right-wing movements with anti-capitalist sentiments including conservatives and fascists who opposed what they saw as the selfishness and excessive materialism inherent in contemporary capitalism.
so, we see that there is a subjective perspective on the definition

so your *fact* is only partially right based on *your* interpretation, or bias

2Bcont'd
Captain Stumpy
5 / 5 (1) Jan 26, 2018
@nou
I didn't do any such thing
you proved not only your bias, but that you're unwilling to actually accept that you are biased about the subject
You also proved you're not willing to read further because that would include accepting data that is counter to your bias

sounds like religion, doesn't it?
I think I even mention politics is like religion somewhere...Hmm

then you go on to make conflated misnomers, etc as arguments against conflated misnomers, etc - Even you must see the absurdity and recursiveness of this?

erm - maybe not, because you also claim
The political right and political left as described above are not under debate
they're *always* under debate - that is what brought the change!
https://en.wikipe...#History

https://en.wikipe...#History

or did you not know that other cultures have influenced our own political views?

Wow, huh?
Captain Stumpy
not rated yet Jan 26, 2018
@Nou
so again, there is clear and proven history showing you how right and left evolved, and how other cultures have heavily influenced our own definitions of political left and right, plus the definitions alone on wiki show how each has evolved in the US alone to their current definition just since reconstruction...

and along with all that you can see how modern evolution of definitions, words as well as ideology is rapidly increasing due to mass information access

yet you still claim
The political right and political left as described above are not under debate, and I have no interest in debating something so elementary
that is the definition of bias
http://psychology...iki/Bias

and that is *not* debatable
it is proven by your own above posts!
Captain Stumpy
not rated yet Jan 26, 2018
@mr
What a great point!!!! They shun new research into safe nuclear power because it might solve the problem thus not affording them the power to limit individual freedoms and create a one world government
I neither shun new research nor do I advocate for a one-world government

I am especially disgusted by limited freedoms and I've served (and still serve) to protect said freedoms from idiots who would take them away

by your definition, because I advocate for actual science I must be "left", but my advocacy and service make me "right"

guess what?
I'm neither

in point of fact, one can make the argument that a whole group of people out there are completely unrepresented with no real advocacy (Centrists)

it's not an either-or issue
there is science, and there is whatever political rhetoric you spew in order to feel better about ignoring reality

do I need to point out what that makes you?
Noumenon
1 / 5 (3) Jan 26, 2018
@Stumpy,

Now, you conflate relative and contextual definitions with subjectivity. I live and speak in USA/Canada, in 2018.

For example, did you know that had I lived a few hundred years ago, I would have considered myself an advocate of liberalism? Not now, because that word, originally implying for-liberty, had been hi-jacked by what are now known as liberal progressives and now emphasizes big government.

Here some more chaff to toss up if you want,.... there are fiscally conservative democrats, and there are liberal progressive republicans.

My descriptions of conservative and liberal progressives are contextual and not bias nor subjective.

Captain Stumpy
not rated yet Jan 26, 2018
@Nou
Now, you conflate relative and contextual definitions with subjectivity. I live and speak in USA/Canada, in 2018
https://en.wikipe...#History

https://en.wikipe...#History

did you miss that subtle hint with the history links? did you happen to notice the dates of the studies?

yeah - I suck at subtle

Usually, I leave that to others, but I think I pulled it off above (big hint there)

there are other subtle (and not so subtle) points made above - can you understand them?
or will your bias not allow you to see the points being made?

and again: politics is no different than religion
it is - always changing
-culturally modified to suit the times and people
-has factions of all sorts (you reiterate this point)

it is entirely subjective, regardless of the current definitions (proven above and by references)

therefore it is in no way logical to use as a refute to science
period
full stop
Noumenon
1 / 5 (3) Jan 26, 2018
politics is no different than religion


Factually incorrect. Political philosophy has to do with form of government and extent of liberty, ..... religion is about metaphysics.

it is entirely subjective, regardless of the current definitions (proven above and by references)


Again, factually incorrect. Politics concerns itself with form of economic system, as another example, which is objective,.... i.e. the repercussions of a particular political ideology can be measured. The tens of millions who died in history due to central planning is not subjective.

That different people in different regions at different times, hold different political philosophies, does not mean that the elements of what defines those ideologies are "subjective" as if implying subject to to the whims of each individual.

no way logical to use as a refute to science


I wasn't arguing this point. I pointed out clearly why I made the point wrt "conservative".
Noumenon
1 / 5 (3) Jan 26, 2018
My original point was to challenge the notion that the political right are "conservative" as in 'reluctance to change'. Free market capitalism has brought enormous change to all levels of society.

therefore it is in no way logical to use as a refute to science


A science that purports to speculate on the effects of AGW one century from now, if it is to be complete, must necessarily add the effects of mankind as a response feedback,.... and therefore must take into account political elements. Indeed, this is why AGW models include various scenarios as starting hypotheses.

Noumenon
1 / 5 (3) Jan 26, 2018
.... I don't know how one could use politics to refute the core science of climate change, but neither do I know how one could refute that politics is an operational element of climate change, including the alarmist speculations.
MR166
1 / 5 (2) Jan 26, 2018
That is the crux of the problem, science and politics are intertwined. Since a government seaking greater and greater control of a population has a vested interest in a particular outcome the researchers that if repeatedly funds become tainted by elimination. This does not apply to all the sciences. The government has no vested interest in string theory or the existence of black holes.
Captain Stumpy
not rated yet Jan 26, 2018
@Nou
Factually incorrect. Political philosophy has to do with
so, what part of the rest that you didn't read was factually incorrect?
was it the change? (proven by history/links above)

or was it the "culturally modified to suit the times and people"? sorry, but that is also proven in history/links

maybe you didn't like the "has factions of all sorts" (you reiterate this point, demonstrate it above and validate the links)

or was it that last part that made you think it's factually incorrect: you know, the "it is entirely subjective, regardless of the current definitions"? (proven above and by references, validated by you)

LOL
Again, factually incorrect
except that I prove it is subjective and that the definitions have changed just recently, proving you wrong

...but don't let those links bother your worldview and biases
oh wait!
you're ignoring them!
LOL

2Bcont'd
Captain Stumpy
not rated yet Jan 26, 2018
@nou cont'd
My original point was to challenge the notion that the political right are "conservative" as in 'reluctance to change'
and again I offer the above links that demonstrate otherwise

it's not a matter of my "opinion" - it is a matter of evidence to which you are wrongly stating that I am "factually incorrect"

if you don't like the definitions, links and references, you should send the authors your hate mail and tell them about how wrong they are

surely they will listen to a scholar like yourself...
but neither do I know how one could refute that politics is an operational element of climate change
the "politics" of climate change is the attempted application of knowledge gleaned by science

the problem is the misleading idiocy involved (spread by people like MR) pushing a known false claim with an agenda (link above) in order to maintain the status quo for the sake of financial gail regardless of the potential threats

Captain Stumpy
not rated yet Jan 26, 2018
@nou
I wasn't arguing this point. I pointed out clearly why I made the point wrt "conservative"
I've repeatedly made this point, especially to MR
and I linked evidence that directly contradicts your claims about conservatives

again, I offer only this
if you don't like the evidence, links and references that are used above, perhaps you can set the record straight with a harsh lesson to the study authors like

Augoustinos, Martha; Walker, Iain; Donaghue, Ngaire (2006). Social Cognition: An Integrated Introduction (2nd ed.). London: Sage Publications

or Betz & Immerfall 1998; Betz 1994; Durham 2000; Durham 2002; Hainsworth 2000; Mudde 2000; Berlet & Lyons, 2000

you keep claiming I'm factually incorrect, but you've yet to actually address the points made by actual professionals in the field who defined it for your own collegiate studies

there is a lesson in the above
it's subtle, but I think if you try you can learn it
Captain Stumpy
not rated yet Jan 26, 2018
@MR
That is the crux of the problem, science and politics are intertwined. This does not apply to all the sciences. The government has no vested interest in string theory or the existence of black holes.
1- bullsh*t. the politics are the application of knowledge (or, in climate science, the lack of application of knowledge in order to preserve the status quo due to fear and attempts to control resources for personal gain)

2- you're wrong about vested interest in physics (which is what string theory and black holes are)
all fundamental science leads to further knowledge and potentially great strides in technology, medicine and much more

case in point: Quantum physics has completely revolutionized the planet making information freely available, even when idiots refuse to actually fact check, read source material or learn basic sciences

of course, the same freely available information Hgwy allows nutters to also spread misinformation

like -ahem- you
MR166
not rated yet Jan 27, 2018
"2- you're wrong about vested interest in physics (which is what string theory and black holes are)
all fundamental science leads to further knowledge and potentially great strides in technology, medicine and much more."

Well perhaps that part was not made clear, I did not try to infer that physics was corrupted by politics. If fact I was using string theory and black holes as and example of a field where political influence is not evident.
Captain Stumpy
not rated yet Jan 27, 2018
Not sure if you're denying or enforcing the objection
@zeph
it's self-explanatory if you actually *read the rest* of that point
but imagine that! you didn't
Huh

so, in small words you can comprehend:
politics doesn't require knowledge to act: it only requires action - regardless of how effective or logical it may be, or how much damage it will do that we are fully aware of

this is best demonstrated by the *lack* of action in global warming and climate change

it is also historically demonstrated by various pollution issues, genocide, or similar historical decisions of politics which lead to the world we live in
...should be particularly concerned with
this is true in action, but it is something they *should* be concerned with

minus points for not reading the post - but plus points for the latter
Captain Stumpy
not rated yet Jan 27, 2018
@Mr
Well perhaps that part was not made clear, I did not try to infer that physics was corrupted by politics. If fact I was using string theory and black holes as and example of a field where political influence is not evident
[sic]
I see

politicians always fight fundamental science though - mostly they do it because they don't understand the long-term benefits of actual knowledge gleaned from Science
eg: Superconducting Super Collider (SSC) - also nicknamed the Desertron

that was a truly sad day in our history
Captain Stumpy
not rated yet Jan 27, 2018
@zeph
politics doesn't require knowledge to act: it only requires action - regardless of how effective or logical it may be, or how much damage it will do that we are fully aware of
this was cut during the edit

correction: "it only requires action" should read "it only requires the perception of action" [by the constituents]

I don't know why that didn't copy over
meh
Da Schneib
not rated yet Jan 27, 2018
If you mean 'conservatives fear change', this is a misnomer do to conflating and overly simplifying the political ideology with the word 'conservative'. Conservatives advocate free market capitalism and competition and egoism, of which there is no other force that has brought such immense economic and social evolution, therefore conservatives are all about change. It is the anti-capitalists who are in fear of the results of freedom,.... "wealth inequality",.... and seek to regulate capitalistic evolution and change.
Regulated capitalism is the most successful economic and political system in the history of the world. Free market capitalism is as unsuccessful as communism and every other command economy, which is what free market capitalism becomes if unregulated. Free market capitalism becomes crony capitalism which becomes a command economy when the economic bosses control all the money.
MR166
5 / 5 (1) Jan 27, 2018
If it were truly free market capitalism then there would be no political payoffs and no crony capitalism but the interests of the people would not be preserved. Regulated free capitalism IS the most successful political system in history. We have to be vigilant in order to keep it from turning into crony capitalism which is neither free nor regulated with the people's best interests in mind. Crony capitalism can own the entire government in a blink of an eye.
Noumenon
2 / 5 (4) Jan 27, 2018
When one says "free market capitalism", they don't necessarily mean "laissez-faire capitalism".

"[Theodore Roosevelt] believed then what we know is true today: that the free market is the greatest force for economic progress in human history." - Obama
MR166
not rated yet Jan 27, 2018
Yup you are correct there. When the government picks the winners and the losers and not the free market the problems begin. Regulations can inhibit competition with disastrous results. Prescription drug prices are a prime example of this.
MR166
not rated yet Jan 27, 2018
When the Supreme Court ruled that corporations were allowed to fund political campaigns it was a HUGE mistake.
Da Schneib
not rated yet Jan 27, 2018
When one says "free market capitalism", they don't necessarily mean "laissez-faire capitalism".
In my experience that's not true. The constant push to "deregulate" has been titled "free market capitalism" by its adherents.
MR166
not rated yet Jan 27, 2018
Da it all comes down to a matter of degree. What you consider to be laissez-faire could be over regulation to me. For instance one of my concerns is that pollution regulations be cost effective while others think any degree of pollution emitted be stopped no mater what the economic cost. Then of course there are the discussions over what the true costs really are and whether the papers analyzing these cost are unbiased or not.
Da Schneib
not rated yet Jan 27, 2018
@MR, it's not about over-regulation. It's about any regulation at all and that's what bothers me.
MR166
not rated yet Jan 27, 2018
"@MR, it's not about over-regulation. It's about any regulation at all and that's what bothers me."

Da I don't think that anyone in their right mind wants no regulation at all. Perhaps they are just expressing their views poorly.
Da Schneib
not rated yet Jan 27, 2018
@MR I don't know what you expect people to hear when you talk about drowning government in a bathtub but I can't see another way to interpret that but "no regulation at all."
Captain Stumpy
not rated yet Jan 27, 2018
@Mr
Da I don't think that anyone in their right mind wants no regulation at all
hypocrite
You hamstring US companies to the point that they have to move operations to China
https://phys.org/...ump.html

actually, they moved to china because it's so damn cheap to manufacture plus no regulation
government regulations and bureaucracy can make any form of power prohibitively expensive
https://phys.org/...nts.html

your fears come to light
... is correct about government being the cause of many problems
https://phys.org/news/2018-01-flawed-us-led-world-blame-american.html

so you want the gov't to regulate, but you don't want the gov't to regulate because they cause problems

this hypocrisy is because you get your information from political sources rather than science, otherwise you would advocate for regulations helping control pollution (AGW)
Noumenon
1 / 5 (3) Jan 28, 2018
@MR I don't know what you expect people to hear when you talk about drowning government in a bathtub but I can't see another way to interpret that but "no regulation at all."


My understanding (albeit not an economist) is that "laissez-faire capitalism" implies No regulation, while "free market capitalism" implies Limited regulation. If there is presently thought too much regulation, then naturally you will see a push to deregulate specific areas, without at the same time implying zero regulation across the board.

The USA current system would then be a "free market", as quoted by Obama above, which retains from laissez-faire the notion of a '"natural order" or liberty under which individuals in following their selfish interests contributed to the general good.', as expressed above.

MR166
not rated yet Jan 28, 2018
Capt. What you are trying to say is that if a person accepts one regulation as good then they are a hypocrite if they do not accept all regulations as good.

Here is an example of a good regulation run amuck. Good: Regulate the land around wetlands to prevent excessive development and usage.

Bad: Classify an area as wetlands because it shows surface water for as little as 2 weeks out of the year.
MR166
5 / 5 (1) Jan 28, 2018
It makes no sense to have strict environmental, labor and health laws and ship all of your manufacturing overseas to countries the don't and purchase their products.. I think that a tariff makes a lot of sense in that case in order to level the playing field for domestic companies.

If you are for our laws but against tariffs on countries that do not meet our standards then you are really against manufacturing anything in the US. More than likely you are a globalist that is trying to raise the standard of living in 3rd world countries at the expense of the US population.

Plus that China is closed to US companies unless they are willing to give up their trade secrets by manufacturing in that country. Trump is just trying to end an inequitable trading system.
Noumenon
2.6 / 5 (5) Jan 28, 2018
Free market capitalism becomes crony capitalism which becomes a command economy when the economic bosses control all the money.


Crony capitalism implies the influence of government political "cronies" in seeking benefits for specific industries and thus undermining otherwise natural competition,.... i.e. the 'use of' government by industries to undermine competition. Again, the problem here is the force of government. This is precisely what laissez-faire capitalism seeks to avoid.

So, you are correct as expressed with my definition, but not necessarily for "laissez-faire capitalism". The current system of free market capitalism (my definition) has already been infected by government influence and therefore already suffers from crony capitalism.

Noumenon
1 / 5 (3) Jan 28, 2018
EDIT: this is a misnomer [due] to conflating and overly simplifying the political ideology with the word 'conservative'
MR166
5 / 5 (1) Jan 28, 2018
My favorite phrase is "If a little is good a lot is not always better. This applies equally to laws and boob jobs.
Noumenon
2.6 / 5 (5) Jan 28, 2018
To me, the 2008 housing crash was effectively 'crony capitalism' for low income people, because it was fundamentally government policy and government banking institutions (Mortgage-backed securities through GSE's) that was the cause,... the political goal of which was to make it easier for lower income people to buy homes, by lowering lending qualification standards, and thus generating more sub-prime mortgages.

Critiques of "laissez-faire capitalism" or "free market capitalism" tend to invent the problems themselves. For example, the housing crash was a correction to an 'unnatural' influence, not a failure of capitalism. "Wealth inequality", is not a defect of capitalism, but rather a necessary result of freedom as expressed through competition.


MR166
5 / 5 (1) Jan 28, 2018
Actually "N" it was worse than CC. The government directed the banks to make these loans under threat of sanctions due to perceived racial bias issues. The banks in turn, being forced to make these bad loans, lied about them and sold them to Wall Street as AAA instruments.
MR166
5 / 5 (1) Jan 28, 2018
That little mess cost the US taxpayer over one trillion dollars to clean up in direct costs. This created the housing bubble and the appearance of a growing economy until the inevitable crash. BOTH parties were equally involved in this hoax along with the Federal Reserve.
Captain Stumpy
not rated yet Jan 28, 2018
@Mr
What you are trying to say is that if a person accepts one regulation as good then they are a hypocrite if they do not accept all regulations as good
that is not what I am saying at all

let me repeat this
this hypocrisy is because you get your information from political sources rather than science, otherwise you would advocate for regulations helping control pollution (AGW)
you have a long and dedicated history of being anti-government regulation, especially with regard to climate change reg's

... and FSM forbid they should mention curbing Carbon or CO2 emissions as you tend to go apesh*t!

because you don't comprehend the science (and thus the potential threat) you tend to be anti-regulation for anything that would be beneficial in the long-term (which is where you have the problem - "long-term")

that is specifically what I meant and I thought it was obvious considering our long history arguing AGW points here on PO... next time I will be more explicit
Captain Stumpy
not rated yet Jan 28, 2018
@mr cont'd
It makes no sense to have strict environmental, labor and health laws and ship all of your manufacturing overseas to countries the don't and purchase their products
you mean purchase the products they make, correct?
I think I agree with this - to a certain degree
More than likely you are a globalist that is trying to raise the standard of living in 3rd world countries at the expense of the US population
this I do not agree with

The global market is inevitable, especially considering the bulk of manufacturing tends to shift to cheap labour and unregulated nations

There is nothing wrong with a global market
the problem is with the different regulatory bodies (dependent upon nation)

this is where all problems really stem from -
no one wants a single governing entity
current international law really has no enforcement ability
and no nation will acquiesce to subjugation from another culture they dislike

human nature really
Noumenon
2.6 / 5 (5) Jan 28, 2018
you get your information from political sources rather than science, otherwise you would advocate for regulations helping control pollution (AGW)


Well no, it is not the business of science to formulate regulations. That is the business of politics. It is quite dangerous to grant science autonomous authority in establishing regulations. As mentioned above, this is what the liberal progressive wants.

For example, it is a scientific fact that obesity leads to heart disease and is the cause of millions of deaths per year. This scientific fact does not of itself posses autonomous justification to warrant regulations mandating exercise and regulating what people eat.

Instead, scientific facts must pass through political debate in order to determine the extent of regulations and their effects on economic forces.


MR166
5 / 5 (1) Jan 28, 2018
Capt. for 50 years we have been creating and enforcing strict environmental, health and safety laws in the US. Let's just assume that all of these regulations are needed to insure the wellbeing of the world and nation. How does allowing imported goods from a nation with none of these protections make any sense at all? At a minimum a tariff is needed to offset these increased costs and give our manufactures a fair shake. If one is not willing to do this then one wants to give foreign countries an unfair advantage ie globalist. This was a purposeful plan to share US prosperity around the world. The cost to the US was increased poverty, wage stagnation and a dwindling middle class for the past 50 years.
Noumenon
2 / 5 (4) Jan 28, 2018
There is nothing wrong with a global market the problem is with the different regulatory bodies


In theory, but when you have different economies at different levels and countries devaluing it's own currency, then it's the purview of government to protect it's own people from external factors otherwise not under it's economic systems control.

Captain Stumpy
not rated yet Jan 28, 2018
@Nou
Well no, it is not the business of science to formulate regulations
I never said it was the business of science
it is, however, the business of science to research data which idiot politicians ignore, misinterpret or wrongly utilise for the formulation of regulations
It is quite dangerous to grant science autonomous authority in establishing regulations
science isn't about regulation or authority

if you will actually read the rest of the interactions between us, you will see your misinterpretation of that particular line

as a voting citizen he has the ability and power to influence politicians through various means - however he gets his information from political sites or known pseudoscience, therefore his influence is wasted promoting blatantly false information causing more miscommunication and worsening spread of idiocy

there is no debate on the science of warming, regardless of mr's arguments to the contrary
Da Schneib
not rated yet Jan 28, 2018
Hmmm, Wikipedia thinks laissez-faire and free market capitalism are the same thing. You can see this in the articles on capitalism, free market, and laissez-faire.
Captain Stumpy
not rated yet Jan 28, 2018
@mr
Capt. for 50 years we have been creating and enforcing strict environmental, health and safety laws in the US
yes and no
we have created and built enforcement into the law, however, this is not always applied equally
How does allowing imported goods from a nation with none of these protections make any sense at all?
wasn't my point

Noumenon
2.6 / 5 (5) Jan 28, 2018
Hmmm, Wikipedia thinks laissez-faire and free market capitalism are the same thing. You can see this in the articles on capitalism, free market, and laissez-faire.


I thought historically the first experiment of laissez-faire was that of No government interference at all, in setting prices, oppressing free choice, nor regulations,... attempted in France, obviously.

Subsequently, we have regulated capitalism that yet retains free market principals wrt private supply and demand determining prices,.... so we say "free market" to express this. Therefore, I don't think Obama was wrong in using that phrase knowing full well that we don't have a laissez-faire system.

Da Schneib
5 / 5 (1) Jan 28, 2018
I don't know that I'd call a regulated market a free market. I think markets can be over-regulated, but I also think that regulation should proceed from public and systemic risks. Nobody burns leaded gasoline any more, after all.
Noumenon
2 / 5 (4) Jan 28, 2018
I don't know that I'd call a regulated market a free market


Regulation is only one component though. The other being individual free choice in supply and demand determining prices (i.e. as opposed to government doing so),... so that "free market" expresses the latter,.... while "laissez-faire system" expresses both.

Da Schneib
not rated yet Jan 28, 2018
Well, the only problem is that a lot of people are going to misinterpret you when you say free market as saying laissez-faire.
Noumenon
2 / 5 (4) Jan 28, 2018
Well, the only problem is that a lot of people are going to misinterpret you when you say free market as saying laissez-faire.


I'm the one drawling a distinction between the two because there exist multiple components. I don't think Obama's speech was confusing.

Da Schneib
not rated yet Jan 28, 2018
Obama, also, was not an economist, though he listened to some pretty good ones.
drrobodog
5 / 5 (3) Jan 29, 2018
Well, the only problem is that a lot of people are going to misinterpret you when you say free market as saying laissez-faire.


I'm the one drawling a distinction between the two because there exist multiple components. I don't think Obama's speech was confusing.


I agree with Da Schneib. Free market capitalism is the term used by those wanting limited to no government intervention in the market system.

Ironically the term also includes no intervention by a "price-setting monopoly, or other authority", and has a core tenant of "prices set freely by the forces of supply and demand". Without government involvement, however, entities that are a part of the market itself will eventually form into monopolies or authorities that then manipulate the market from within.
Da Schneib
5 / 5 (1) Jan 29, 2018
@drrobodog, precisely. Then you have a command economy.
MR166
not rated yet Jan 29, 2018
You are all arguing over semantics. It has long since been settled that some regulation is needed. It is just the amount and form of regulation that is being questioned including government funding of certain sectors as well as the shutdown of other sectors due to over regulation. For crying out loud there are dead industrial bodies lying all over the US and you are arguing whether it is murder or homicide.
Da Schneib
not rated yet Jan 29, 2018
@MR, I never heard from you about the drowning government in a bathtub thing. The purpose of government is to regulate and it's empowered by the US Constitution to do exactly that. The Legislature prescribes and proscribes; the Executive enforces and deals with foreign relations; and the judiciary decides whether the prescriptions and proscriptions have been violated, and if so imposes sanctions. Overall it's a pretty good system that has stood the test of time. Its only weakness is the power of money.

The ones the regulations really bother are the banksters.

For the manufacturers, I'd say that regulations about worker safety and pollution are reasonable, and actually cost them less than the liability does after people get hurt by the reckless. Pay now or pay later, is how it works out for them.

Your examples so far haven't had any links to these things actually happening. You might want to think about that.
Da Schneib
not rated yet Jan 29, 2018
Incidentally, @MR, you're off ignore. You're not capering in this thread, so you're worth talking to. I hope that continues. You should be very wary of what you attribute to "liberal progressives" since I consider myself one; I don't fit many of the stereotypes you often use, though, so you might not think so. My wife thinks I'm a conservative Democrat, and she might be right. I perhaps don't see conservatism in quite the way you might think for someone who is progressive. You might find out if you checked that the bulk of Democrats think that way.
MR166
not rated yet Jan 30, 2018
Da I will never be able to figure out how the Democrats could support Hillary after her performance as Secretary of State and the operation of the Clinton Foundation. As you no doubt know I am Libertarian Conservative who is very non socialist. That being said, In an election, I would vote for Bernie Sanders way before I would vote for Hillary. Despite the fact that I disagree with his socialism I believe him to be truthful and much more ethical than Hillary.
Schneibster
1 / 5 (1) Jan 30, 2018
Just testing
rrwillsj
1 / 5 (4) Jan 31, 2018
Funny how people always ignore the lessons of history.
For instance the Welfare State was invented by Progressive Republicans. Strictly out of self-interest. They wanted better educated, healthier workers competent to run complicated machinery. They wanted healthier, better educated soldiers to be competent with modern weaponry. They wanted pliant consumers with steady income to purchase the goods being advertised.

I think it is hilarious the craven attacks on Hillary Clinton. If she was anywhere near being the 'Dragon Lady" you all cower before? Make her head of the CIA! Or, Secretary of Defense. Since she is the only American politician that the putz Putin fears and respects.

From your reflexive panic-mongering? I wonder if Hillary was the role-model for Daenerys Targaryen?
MR166
5 / 5 (1) Jan 31, 2018
"They wanted better educated, healthier workers competent to run complicated machinery."

Oh the horror of it all. Well the Democrats sure fixed that. Now much of the country is ignorant, poor, unhealthy and unemployable.
rrwillsj
1 / 5 (4) Feb 01, 2018
MR166, just for laughs and giggles, you might check out the percentage of school boards dominated by GOP/altright/evangelists. And how it is the 'liberal' blue states that are not only economically thriving. But also have to financially subsidize the declining economies of the 'conservative' red states.

Cause all that crap your gang-that-can't-shoot-straight shovel around about free enterprise and self-sustaining individualism is nothing but the hypocrisy of self-serving bigots.
MR166
not rated yet Feb 01, 2018

"MR166, just for laughs and giggles, you might check out the percentage of school boards dominated by GOP/altright/evangelists."

Oh you mean like Detroit and Chicago and the rest of the major US cities. Yea, the public schools in LA are really the pathway to success. Well they can be if your goal is to sell drugs.
guptm
not rated yet Feb 07, 2018
@Noumenon: "Human intelligence is not natural then? Seems humans are a product of the earth,.... and therefore everything humans do is natural, along with any adaptation and migration necessary on account of human life."

Global warming is natural for you then? All human actions are natural for you, right? Nothing to worry about anything in this world because everything is natural!!...haha..
Noumenon
1 / 5 (3) Feb 10, 2018
"Human intelligence is not natural then? Seems humans are a product of the earth,.... and therefore everything humans do is natural, along with any adaptation and migration necessary on account of human life."


Global warming is natural for you then? All human actions are natural for you, right? Nothing to worry about anything in this world because everything is natural!!...haha..


I did not say nor imply that because something is natural that there is no response required, in fact, you just quoted my mentioning migration and adaptation.

Please sign in to add a comment. Registration is free, and takes less than a minute. Read more

Click here to reset your password.
Sign in to get notified via email when new comments are made.