It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

Carbon offset chocolate is candy with a conscience

page: 1
1

log in

join
share:

posted on Jun, 6 2008 @ 03:30 PM
link   

Carbon offset chocolate is candy with a conscience


www.breitbart.com

Want to buy a day's worth of carbon offsets with your chocolate bar? How about donating to breast cancer research with your breath mints? Candy with a conscience is one of the latest trends to come out of the annual confectioner's convention as manufacturers jostle to grab the attention of consumers on increasingly crowded store shelves.
New Zealand's Bloomsberry chocolates had been selling trendy, tongue-in-cheek chocolate bars in the United States for less than two years when they were approached by Whole Foods to develop Climate Change Chocolate.
(visit the link for the full news article)

Mod Edit: Breaking News Forum Submission Guidelines – Please Review This Link.




[edit on 6/6/2008 by Mirthful Me]




posted on Jun, 6 2008 @ 03:30 PM
link   
I'm sorry, but I find this story to be a perfect example of how ridiculous things have become with regard to global warming hype.


Marketed as the "first taste of a lower-carbon lifestyle," Bloomsberry donates 55 cents from each bar to TerraPass to pay for 133 pounds of carbon offsets, which is the average American's daily carbon impact.

"We've sold enough in the first quarter that it's comparable to taking 900 cars off the road for a year," said Kerry Laramie, vice president sales and marketing for Bloomsberry's US division.

"That's 9.3 million pounds of carbon offsets."



Excuse me? Am I missing something here? Selling candy bars is the same as removing cars from the roads? Geez Louise, I'm left wondering just how many candy bars they will have to sell to save the entire planet. Forget the carbon tax, we all just need to start buying the right candy....and lots more of it.

Perhaps there is hope for our survival after all.

www.breitbart.com
(visit the link for the full news article)

[edit on 6-6-2008 by SystemiK]



posted on Jun, 6 2008 @ 03:40 PM
link   
LOL! Assuming one believes the farce of man driven climate change, doesn't that person wonder how those candy bars were delivered to the store? I don't buy into pseudo sciences and quackery, so admittedly I'm not a believer in man caused climate change, but even I recognize that if you do buy into it then you must recognize that diesel trucks delivering the goods pump out more than a car's worth of emissions... not to mention whatever your car puts out as you drive out of your way to the nearest Whole Foods (the closest one to me, for instance, is a 35 mile drive.)



posted on Jun, 6 2008 @ 03:50 PM
link   
That is the most insanely stupid thing I've ever heard. To bad I didn't thing of it first.



posted on Jun, 6 2008 @ 04:07 PM
link   
Oh man this is funny. More proof global warming is the new religion for the masses. Also the newest way to separate us from our money without providing us anything of value



posted on Jun, 6 2008 @ 04:12 PM
link   
reply to post by burdman30ott6
 


ummmmm..... u don't believe in human caused climate change? well go read the evidence then. people have an effect on their environment. and now due to the worlds overpopulation and dependency on carbon emitting fuels we have caused quite a global upset in out environment. you are denial, you must lack human compassion.



posted on Jun, 6 2008 @ 06:14 PM
link   
I am utterly confused here...

First of all, I really don't understand the carbon credits at all... one company goes green so another can pollute more? How does that reduce carbon emissions?!?

Secondly, the candy is, quite obviously, made of sugar. Sugar cane fields are burned before harvesting, which adds ALOT to the environment... even with the idea that the plant absorbed as much carbon as is given off during the burning, you are still adding carbon right back into the atmosphere. Hello?

I don't know... it all just seems like a great big pyramid scheme to me, but that's my thought on it.

Also, I'll reiterate what was said before: Shipping the candy causes pollution.



posted on Jun, 6 2008 @ 08:05 PM
link   
reply to post by Earthscum
 



It is a scheme. So many of the 'solutions' to global warming are no more than pretenses with the goal first and foremost of generating money, whether that be taxes increased cost of services and goods.

If people knew how little of their money that was earmarked for saving the enviornment was actually used in a beneficial way, they would be shocked.



posted on Jun, 6 2008 @ 08:34 PM
link   
MMMmmmmmm- Guilt-free chocolate! Now that's decadence!

Pretty soon Ben & Jerry's will be tagging on $0.50 for Carbon Exchange on every pint to feel good about all those cow farts.



posted on Jun, 6 2008 @ 08:34 PM
link   
Ive been saying for a while now...

Greener is the new meaner....


IE...

"Our Truck is BIGGER, FASTER, and GREENER then the rest!"

Our big mean GREEN Machine...


LOL... isnt this great...



posted on Jun, 6 2008 @ 08:47 PM
link   
reply to post by SystemiK
 


Ok, so I really am seeing this for what it is? Carbon credits never made sense to me... like a poker game... no matter how many people are left, there are still the same amount of chips on the table?

Economics, no matter how well explained to me, seem the same way.
I get so frustrated because someone seems to always jump in and call me crazy, or say I'm not seeing the whole picture, or I'm 'nitpicking'. Usually ends with me walking away feeling like I'm the stupidest person in the world because everyone else seems to 'get it'.



posted on Jun, 6 2008 @ 09:11 PM
link   
Did anyone else catch this?

"55 cents from each bar to TerraPass to pay for 133 pounds of carbon offsets, which is the average American's daily carbon impact"

So, that would mean that by living, existing, breathing, each american should be taxed 55 cents per day? Did I read this right? This is the first time I have seen a price put on the inevitable tax on breathing.

Let's see, at $0.55 a day, that works out to $3.85 a week... $16.50 a month... $200.75 a year. Calculate for a family of four, and we have a new $803 per year tax. Isn't that nice? Less than a grand per year for the right to exist.

Let's see, isn't the US population about 500,000,000? That comes to... mmm, carry the 2, move the decimal... $100,375,000,000 per year ($100 BILLION) in new taxes. Gee, with all that money, I wonder how much will be spent to remove carbon dioxide from the air?

At least we know the government won't take all our money to fight the odorless, tasteless gas that will doom us all. Yet.

TheRedneck


[edit on 6-6-2008 by TheRedneck]



posted on Jun, 7 2008 @ 12:09 AM
link   
Should I Bill Them For This Marketing Slogan?

"If you don't believe in Carbon Offset Chocolate, then you're worse than a Holocaust denier!"







[edit on 6/7/2008 by Majic]



posted on Jun, 7 2008 @ 01:36 AM
link   
..sounds like skimming and cashing in on a trend to me. Were they imported to the US by ship or jet? What are the wrappers made of? Are their factories trying to be greener as well? Does this mean a new growth forest is going to be planted for every million sold? they don't specify- and are probably hoping consumers don't ask them to.

[edit on 7-6-2008 by riley]



posted on Jun, 7 2008 @ 01:50 AM
link   

Originally posted by Majic

"If you don't believe in Carbon Offset Chocolate, then you're worse than a Holocaust denier!"


That slogan does have a very nice ring to it, but it seems a bit more 2010 than it does 2008. Perhaps it should be left to age a bit more, aged to perfection, and then brought out when this new religion of global warming is a bit more established....



posted on Jun, 7 2008 @ 02:09 AM
link   

Originally posted by Earthscum
I am utterly confused here...

First of all, I really don't understand the carbon credits at all... one company goes green so another can pollute more? How does that reduce carbon emissions?!?

Secondly, the candy is, quite obviously, made of sugar. Sugar cane fields are burned before harvesting, which adds ALOT to the environment... even with the idea that the plant absorbed as much carbon as is given off during the burning, you are still adding carbon right back into the atmosphere. Hello?

I don't know... it all just seems like a great big pyramid scheme to me, but that's my thought on it.

Also, I'll reiterate what was said before: Shipping the candy causes pollution.


I would have to agree, not that going "green" isn't a good thing, but it seems to be a trendy thing now too... I'd say this is part of a huge marketing scheme to sell more candy... I didn't know they burned sugar cane fields though, that is very interesting... I don't really eat chocolate, so maybe now I won't eat it at all... Thanks for the info.!


+7 more 
posted on Jun, 7 2008 @ 02:51 AM
link   
What Science™ Tells Us

After consulting an international body of leading climatologist/confectionists and running several computer simulations using error-free, unmanipulated data, I discovered that there is not only a wealth of nutritional information available, but also a unanimous scientific consensus about the product that leaves no room for debate.



Carbon Offset Chocolate™
Feeling superior never tasted so sweet!™

Nutrition Facts

Serving Size: 100g
Servings Per Container: Rising at an alarming rate

Amount Per Serving
Calories: 0
Total Fat: 0g
Cholesterol: 0g
Sodium: 1 grain
Total Carbohydrate: 0g
Protein: 0g
Certainty: 90g (90%)
Sanctimony: 10g (10%)
Temperature: +0.1 degrees celsius per bite +/- 6 degrees celsius

Ingredients: Carbon, oxygen, glacier water, sun spots, politics, speculation, profit, fear, artificial consensus, credulity, globalism, tax revenue, vitriol, arctic ice, prophecy, special interests, data conformation, argumentum ad verecundiam, corporate manipulation, scientism, straw men, career enhancement, pressurized urgency, government spending, propaganda, puritanism, hockey sticks, groupthink, kickbacks, alarmism, peer pressure, self-denial, molded opinion, thermometer error, marxism, polar bear meat, market manipulation, grant money, presumption, writeoffs, apocalypse, campaign contributions, denunciation, shell companies, pork, dogmatism, hedge funds, publication bias, baby harp seals, planned obsolescence, ostracism, recycled protest signs, social psychology, ad hominem, international banking, gloom, doom, face paint, melamine, old money, pandering, earmarks, frog skins, guilt, public diplomacy, ipse dixit, dioxin, MK-Ultra™ brand sweetener, chocolate, less than 1% ozone added as a preservative.

Certified by the IPCC to contain absolutely no skepticism, objectivity or proof.


Oh I am SO going to get flamed for this.


[edit on 6/7/2008 by Majic]



posted on Jun, 7 2008 @ 08:42 AM
link   
^^^^^^^
Majic...

------

Anyways, as far as the sugar cane goes...

Sugar Cane - Wiki

Sugarcane is harvested mostly by hand or sometimes mechanically. Hand harvesting accounts for more than half of the world's production, and is especially dominant in the developing world. When harvested by hand, the field is first set on fire. The fire spreads rapidly, burning away dry dead leaves, and killing any venomous snakes hiding in the crop, but leaving the water-rich stalks and roots unharmed. With cane knives or machetes, harvesters then cut the standing cane just above the ground. A skilled harvester can cut 500 kg of sugarcane in an hour.


BUT, they also have machinery that does it WITHOUT burning the fields... but that machinery still uses fuel to drive it... as well as more waste of product.


With mechanical harvesting, a sugarcane combine (or chopper harvester), a harvesting machine originally developed in Australia, is used. The Austoft 7000 series was the original design for the modern harvester and has now been copied by other companies including Cameco and John Deere. The machine cuts the cane at the base of the stalk, separates the cane from its leaves, and deposits the cane into a haulout transporter while blowing the trash back onto the field. Such machines can harvest 100 tonnes of cane each hour, but cane harvested using these machines must be transported to the processing plant rapidly; once cut, sugarcane begins to lose its sugar content, and damage inflicted on the cane during mechanical harvesting accelerates this decay.



Also, riley made a good point... what ABOUT the wrappers? Manufacturing process? Shipment methods? How about all those wrappers you throw away?

Maybe I'll go on a trend and make my OWN carbon offset candies. I'll use the sugar, but hey... I'll offer $0.10 off each bar per wrapper returned for proper recycling. I'll make the wrappers from sugar cane cellulose. I'll only ship it via plane that only runs on biodiesel. Maybe Willy Nelson will ship it for me on his plane! (Willy is awesome guy! At least he's trying... better than I can say for myself...) Now I think we have a REAL carbon offset confection!



posted on Jun, 7 2008 @ 06:07 PM
link   
Majic.....that post was OUTSTANDING. You really outdid your self there


I just realized that this chocolate bar costs $5.50 (seriously, $5.50 for a 3.5 oz. chocolate bar). If a person would like to help the enviornment, would it not make more sense to donate the entire $5.50 to a more appropriate cause?



posted on Jun, 7 2008 @ 11:49 PM
link   
reply to post by SystemiK
 


Or, spend $1 on a candy bar and donate $4.50 to an appropriate cause.

Best of both worlds!




top topics



 
1

log in

join