Green Grok, has a post about the carbon dioxide in champagne and soda that’s a  good read, but misses the party on at least one important issue.

Grok points out that carbon dioxide in champagne and soda, whether generated internally or injected artificially, is probably not an issue with respect to global warming.  He notes, for example

Most of the CO2 currently put in sodas and such is apparently captured as a by-product of other industrial processes that burn fossil fuels and would have gotten into the atmosphere anyway. And in any event, the total amount of CO2 added to the atmosphere from our soft drink consumption looks to be quite small.

(I’m not a big fan of the word “apparently” in this context.  Apparently according to whom?  And on what basis?  There is no citation, and Grok knows that he ought to provide more than just an “apparently.”)

The post misses an important factor by not weighing in on health aspects of soft drink consumption, although he is focusing on global warming.  He states that

If you are concerned about drinking and global warming, a much more important issue is the energy used to produce and transport the product from its source to your mouth. Want to do something about it? Drink local, naturally carbonated spirits and more tap water, and don’t forget to smell deeply when you drink the bubbly.

Indeed, transporting all that liquid around, which is mostly water at 62.4 pounds per cubic foot, is a very expensive proposition (unless it is done by rail, perhaps).

But there are important health consequences (being overweight, diabetes, etc.) that stem from drinking so much soda, most of which has high corn fructose corn syrup, a sugar sweetener.  Way too much land is used for growing corn to produce this sweetener with government subsidies, and that does indeed use a lot of energy.  The subsidies should,  instead, go to help grow fruits and vegetables.