How much CO2 does the softdrink and beer industry produce? This must contribute to Global Warming!?

Question

Think about all the CO2 produced every day by Coke, Pepsi, Anhause-Bush Budweiser, Miller and Coors! This must exceed or at least come close to the daily amount of CO2 produced by Toyota, DaimlerChrysler, GM, Honda, Porsche-VW-Audi, BMW and others. While we might need beer and transportation, we don't need soda pop, and we must not mix Beer and BMWs! What do we do about Global Warming?!

While we consider that, consider how much CO2 you, I and Al Gore give off just by breating!

Answer 1

You don't actually need beer either.  In a way you are correct.  Get rid of all living things and there is no need to worry about global warming.  Personally, I am not worried anyway.  It's based upon incomplete information.  I have more faith in God than I do global warming.

Answer 2

Man think of all the breathing the greenies do, hope they hold their breath we'd end the global warming c**p on two fronts.

http://www.oism.org/pproject/s33p36.htm

http://www.junkscience.com

Media Shows Irrational Hysteria on Global Warming

"The Public Has Been Vastly Misinformed," NCPA's Deming Tells Senate Committee

12/6/2006 5:57:00 PM

To: National Desk

Contact: Sean Tuffnell of the National Center for Policy Analysis, 972-308-6481 or [e-mail]

WASHINGTON, Dec. 6 /U.S. Newswire/ -- David Deming, an associate professor at the University of Oklahoma and an adjunct scholar with the National Center for Policy Analysis (NCPA), testified this morning at a special hearing of the Senate Environment and Public Works Committee. The hearing examined climate change and the media. Bellow are excerpts from his prepared remarks.

"In 1995, I published a short paper in the academic journal Science. In that study, I reviewed how borehole temperature data recorded a warming of about one degree Celsius in North America over the last 100 to 150 years. The week the article appeared, I was contacted by a reporter for National Public Radio. He offered to interview me, but only if I would state that the warming was due to human activity. When I refused to do so, he hung up on me.

"I had another interesting experience around the time my paper in Science was published. I received an astonishing email from a major researcher in the area of climate change. He said, "We have to get rid of the Medieval Warm Period." "The Medieval Warm Period (MWP) was a time of unusually warm weather that began around 1000 AD and persisted until a cold period known as the "Little Ice Age" took hold in the 14th century. ... The existence of the MWP had been recognized in the scientific literature for decades. But now it was a major embarrassment to those maintaining that the 20th century warming was truly anomalous. It had to be "gotten rid of."

"In 1999, Michael Mann and his colleagues published a reconstruction of past temperature in which the MWP simply vanished. This unique estimate became known as the "hockey stick," because of the shape of the temperature graph. "Normally in science, when you have a novel result that appears to overturn previous work, you have to demonstrate why the earlier work was wrong. But the work of Mann and his colleagues was initially accepted uncritically, even though it contradicted the results of more than 100 previous studies. Other researchers have since reaffirmed that the Medieval Warm Period was both warm and global in its extent.

"There is an overwhelming bias today in the media regarding the issue of global warming. In the past two years, this bias has bloomed into an irrational hysteria. Every natural disaster that occurs is now linked with global warming, no matter how tenuous or impossible the connection. As a result, the public has become vastly misinformed."

---

The NCPA is an internationally known nonprofit, nonpartisan research institute with offices in Dallas and Washington, D. C. that advocates private solutions to public policy problems. NCPA depends on the contributions of individuals, corporations and foundations that share our mission. The NCPA accepts no government grants.

http://www.usnewswire.com/

Answer 3

It is not that much CO2. You produce far more just driving to the store to buy the soda that is in the soda you buy. And some of the CO2 is actually extracted from the air or from smokestacks, so it REDUCES global warming!

Bob in the first answer is 100% correct.

Answer 4

Nope.

The CO2 in soft drinks was taken from the air.  The CO2 in beer is natural.  Both are relatively small amounts and thus no problem.

To understand global warming, you must understand how the "carbon cycle" works in nature, and look at what the CO2 data is telling us.

There are a great many natural sources and sinks for carbon dioxide.  But the present global warming is (mostly) the result of man made CO2 from burning fossil fuels.

There is a natural "carbon cycle" that recycles CO2.  But it's a delicate balance and we're messing it up.

Look at this graph.

http://scrippsco2.ucsd.edu/graphics_gall...

The little squiggles are nature doing its' thing. CO2 falls a bit during summer when plants are active, and rises during the winter. The huge increase is us, burning fossil fuels (in addition to the shape of the graph, the increase numerically matches the increase in fossil fuel use). The scientists can actually show that the increased CO2 in the air comes from burning fossil fuels by using "isotopic ratios" to identify that CO2.  The natural carbon cycle buried carbon in fossil fuels over a very long time, little bit by little bit. We dig them up and burn them, real fast.  That's a problem.

Man is upsetting the balance of nature.  We need to fix that.

Answer 5

global warming is a myth produced by our government. explain the reports back in the 1800's when farms out west burst into flames when it was too hot. That was way before the industrialized revolution. The earth is going through climate shift, as it has since earth was earth. plain and simple.