Advertise that I'm laughing.

Accused of 'abandoning' my sense of humour.

All i read then was Hookers and blow... Fellas lets move this one to the meet up thread and get this party rollin!

Someone who drives two hours to get a few dozen eggs attempting to lecture on environmental efficiency. So you are aware, your two hours accounts for higher carbon emissions than the transport for a shelf of Coles eggs produces.

Batfink confuses feelings for animals with the reality of pollution and efficient use of material and energy.

Two dicks can't make a baby, but that's a whole different thread champ. Nice try at deflecting your incompetence.

I'd challenge that. Farm to packaging, packaging to storage warehouse, storage warehouse distribution to stores...that's going to have pretty high emissions.

Transport to transport - car is worse.

The landed cost of carbon would be calculated across the whole load. From farm to packaging to DC and then to store are all in bulk, using diesel trucks. Eggs are but a very small part of a store load.

Compare that to the entire two hours being landed against a few dozen, and you will find that emissions per egg are higher.

Emissions per egg are irrelevant when you're comparing bulk to the two dozen eggs that Notor needs.

Farm to packaging uses say 50mg of CO2, packaging to storage uses another 50mg of CO2, warehouse to store distribution uses 50mg of CO2. That's 150mg regardless of whether it's one egg, two dozen eggs or 4,000 eggs.

Meanwhile, Notor drives for 2 hours to pick up his two dozen eggs from the farm and uses 100mg of CO2.

You're assuming a fair bit in your feeble attempt at appearing to put forward a half intelligent argument.

I also buy far more than 2 dozen, and do far more on the trip than just buy eggs *facepalm*

FFS, am i really reading this :lol:

My goodness you are dumb.

Assuming in AfromanGT's example carbon impact of 100mg is spread across say your 4 dozen.

Coles total supply chain impact of transport is loaded between 4,000 eggs or 333 cartons.

Your impact is 25mg per carton, Coles is 0.45mg per carton.

Driving to the shops for one item is the worst carbon impact for shopping. Driving two hours for an item costing $4.00 per unit is dumb, if not environmentally irresponsible.

My point was that the amount of eggs is negligible. As is whether you do other stuff, as I have no doubt there are other things on the truck too.

In essence there's very little chance that commerical eggs produce less CO2 in distribution than you going to the eggs.

Is it okay if I walk to the shops?

Unfortunately, yes. Mr is really this dumb.

Carbon emissions per egg are irrelevant. He's not buying 4,000 eggs. He's buying the same four dozen eggs.

If you were talking about the cumulative carbon footprint from EVERYBODY going and buying their own eggs from the farm you might have a point. But they don't. And we aren't.

We're talking about the carbon footprint of notorcantic's actions as an individual. And for the commercial eggs it doesn't matter if there's three eggs or three thousand eggs, transporting them uses the same amount of carbon dioxide.

Notorcantic or notorpedantic?

You walk to the Coles store and buy a carton = 0.45gm. 332 people do the same.

Notorganised drives an hour to the farm, buys two dozen and drives an hour back. 100mg.

Environmental impact for his action is worse for the environment. The other 332 people who do the same as you have shared the carbon impact.

Wrong on so many levels.

Listen up champ.

You source non local product, and ignore product brought local to you by efficient use of transport systems. Your decisions are harmful to the environment in this case. Change your behaviour and do better for our planet.

Whatever you say, Pal.

Correct.

Glad we got that sorted. I actually stopped watching Wimbledon, grabbed a box of sushi and took up a comfy position on the couch to enjoy this wonderful thread :lol:

So... Where do you guys buy your butter?

ALDI

You were watching Wimbledon and you didn't post in Girt's Tanty Tennis Thread. Shame on you.

I love unexplained assumptions people use in their calculations.

Heading that way now. It's gonna be a party thread from now on.

just admit that you are wrong....you won't die or anything......lots of people are wrong lots of times ...it's OK......

you failed to balance your argument ( as feeble as it may be)with the carbon produces by the coal power that runs the hundreds and hundreds of lights to fool the hens into laying, the truck that deliver the wood shavings,the bobcat that cleans the shed, the truck that takes the manure away, then there is the cruelty to the animals,the replacement of dead hens at a much higher rate, the incubator to hatch the chicks, the high levels of chemivals and drugs required to keep these hens alive.....and on it goes...fake nature is expensive....

you failed to balance your argument ( as feeble as it may be)with the carbon produces by the coal power that runs the hundreds and hundreds of lights to fool the hens into laying, the truck that deliver the wood shavings,the bobcat that cleans the shed, the truck that takes the manure away, then there is the cruelty to the animals,the replacement of dead hens at a much higher rate, the incubator to hatch the chicks, the high levels of chemivals and drugs required to keep these hens alive.....and on it goes...fake nature is expensive....

Early nomination for "well that escalated quickly" thread of the year, afro