Hurray -- Carbon Free Sugar!

[Ben]

I'm so excited for the environment! Not so excited for the US science education system.

http://www.dominosugar.com/CarbonFree/

[Azrael256]

Carbon free sugar...  Shouldn't the bag be floating?  Or did they concoct some kind of silico-hydrate?

[seeker_two]

Glucose (a type of sugar found in human blood plasma) has the molecular formula C6 H12 O6.

So.....Domino is going to sell me a bag of water to sweeten my morning coffee?....

Maybe I can brew my coffee with this to offset the taste....

http://www.buydehydratedwater.com/

 

[Sindawe]

BWAHAHAHHAHAHA!!!

"...carbon is a major source of global warming..."

So we need to do everything possible to cleanse the world of evil carbon!

So.....Domino is going to sell me a bag of water to sweeten my morning coffee?....

You are evil incarnate seeker_two!  Your morning coffee should be free of evil sugar, like mine.

Which is now all over my keyboard and monitor. 

Expect a bill for the replacement Ben.   

[mfree]

As long as nobody tries to sell me a bag of "Carbon Free" garlic, we're all good.

Yeah, that's an obscure chemistry joke... garlic gets it's flavor from organosulfur compounds, take the carbon out and you get hydrogen sulfide.

Now that I write it, kind of lame... *shrug*.

[Racehorse]

Pfft. Why would I buy sugar that's not organic? Seriously.

[Ben]

Expect a bill for the replacement Ben.   

No problem, I just made a bundle investing in carbonless sugar. :)

[RaspberrySurprise]

To anyone who paid attention in biology "carbon free sugar" is both hilarious and saddening at the same time.  Being as carbon molecules are required to form glucose, IE sugar.

[tyme]

To anyone who actually read the FAQ on that site, they are not claiming that their sugar doesn't contain carbon.  Their choice of terms may be unfortunate, but they clearly state that their use of "carbon free" is intended to mean that the product has a neutral carbon footprint.

I remember my HS chemistry teacher had some sort of food product with the label "chemical free."  Things like that, and this, are amusing, but let's not pretend that the people who made them actually thought there were no chemicals (or carbon) in what they were making.  That's simply not the case.

[Ben]

that their use of "carbon free" is intended to mean that the product has a neutral carbon footprint.

I understand that's what they were getting at, and apparently they've been pulling this ad because of the lousy PR terminology, but even so, they are not carbon neutral. That's politically possible, but not physically possible.

[tyme]

Why is that?  I don't know enough about this sugar to defend their claim that it has a neutral carbon footprint, but why do you claim that a neutral carbon footprint is impossible?

[brimic]

I remember my HS chemistry teacher had some sort of food product with the label "chemical free."  Things like that, and this, are amusing, but let's not pretend that the people who made them actually thought there were no chemicals (or carbon) in what they were making.  That's simply not the case.

I remember seeing a picture of a front of a dry-cleaning shop that read "We only use Organic chemicals."

 


I think the *expletive deleted*bag in the commercial has been eating too much reduced carbon sugar like lead acetate if he believes the crap that he's selling.

[mfree]

"but let's not pretend that the people who made them actually thought there were no chemicals (or carbon) in what they were making.  That's simply not the case. "

I don't care what they *thought*. It's what they *said* that's ridiculous.

[Ben]

Why is that?  I don't know enough about this sugar to defend their claim that it has a neutral carbon footprint, but why do you claim that a neutral carbon footprint is impossible?

They appear to be using "carbon credits" to get their "net zero" output. The crops have to be harvested with machines using fuel, rolling on rubber tires, being transported by trucks. Refining and packaging have to use power of some kind, and even if it's 100% solar, you have solar panels and batteries, the manufacture of which is not carbon neutral. It's like someone driving around in their electric car saying they're not polluting, but plugging it in at night to recharge from grid electricity courtesy of coal.

Nothing at all wrong with using renewable energy, or reducing your "carbon footprint" if that's what someone wants to do, but carbon output in some form or another, at some level or another, is still occurring.

[Brad Johnson]

It's proof positive that the whole thing has gotten way, Way, WAY out of hand.

Brad

[tyme]

The crops have to be harvested with machines using fuel, rolling on rubber tires, being transported by trucks. Refining and packaging have to use power of some kind, and even if it's 100% solar, you have solar panels and batteries, the manufacture of which is not carbon neutral...

Nothing at all wrong with using renewable energy, or reducing your "carbon footprint" if that's what someone wants to do, but carbon output in some form or another, at some level or another, is still occurring.

It's still possible to reduce those CO2-producing activies/machines to the point where they can be offset them completely by doing (or funding) other things that pull CO2 out of the air.  There is no thermodynamic principle making it impossible to reduce the amount of CO2 in the atmosphere.

[Ben]

There is no thermodynamic principle making it impossible to reduce the amount of CO2 in the atmosphere.

No, of course not, but the operative word is reduce. There's nothing we can do however, to create zero carbon emissions from humans, short of deciding to stop breathing. The sugar company advertising said zero carbon. Carbon trading is not physically reducing the carbon output of the actual sugar production process.

[MicroBalrog]

I have a serious question.

From what I understand, this company (and others like it) operates on the principle of making their production process as 'clean' as they can, and then  donating some money to carbon-credit people to off-set the remaining CO2 footprint.

But, what activities do carbon-credits actually fund?

[French G.]

But, what activities do carbon-credits actually fund?

Al Gore's light bill?

[Marnoot]

Al Gore's light bill?

Ding ding ding ding!!

[Sindawe]

But, what activities do carbon-credits actually fund?

Why, the very same thing that Indulgences did in the Medevil world. 

[Waitone]

All Domino's is doing is positioning itself as a company with surplus carbon credits so that it can sell some of the excess in the carbon credits market enriching Al Gore, Maurice Strong, and Hank Paulson.

What we should be bemoaning is the level of slobbering, whimpering servitude to which we have fallen.  We should be crawling into the faces (metaphorically speaking) of companies who stake their futures on participation in lies.  We should be explaining politely (for now) that we have no intention of providing them with our money which enables them to play the lie.  Carbon gamesmanship is nothing more than Our Better's means of getting us to slip the dog collar around our own necks.  It is enslavement and nothing less.

Excuse me while I go outside to cook hamburger on a charcoal grill.

[roo_ster]

No problem, I just made a bundle investing in carbonless sugar. :)

I just invested my nest egg in iron-less steel.

[makattak]

I have just one question. I know we have very large tariffs on sugar in order to protect companies such as this.

Didn't a number of our founding fathers make their fortunes smuggling sugar?

[MicroBalrog]

I have just one question. I know we have very large tariffs on sugar in order to protect companies such as this.

Didn't a number of our founding fathers make their fortunes smuggling sugar?

Today we know better. Smugglers and bootleggers are unpersons. Did you miss the last century, Comrade?