Luciano Rodrigues Viana, Université du Québec à Chicoutimi (UQAC); Charles Marty, Université du Québec à Chicoutimi (UQAC); Jean-François Boucher, Université du Québec à Chicoutimi (UQAC), and Pierre-Luc Dessureault, Université du Québec à Chicoutimi (UQAC)
Global coffee consumption has been increasing steadily for almost 30 years. With a daily average consumption of 2.7 cups of coffee per person, coffee is now Canada’s most popular drink. It is estimated that around two billion cups of coffee are consumed daily worldwide.
This demand has led to considerable diversification in the ways of preparing coffee as well, including the creation of coffee capsules. The popularity of these capsules has divided the public opinion because this method of preparation, which uses single-use individual packaging, is harmful to the environment.
As researchers working on assessing the environmental impacts of products and services, we often discuss coffee’s carbon footprint.
We decided to study the carbon footprint of several techniques used to prepare coffee at home, and it turns out that coffee capsules aren’t the biggest carbon culprits.
The life cycle of coffee
The pollution resulting from the preparation of coffee at home is just the tip of the iceberg.
Before you can enjoy a cup of coffee, it goes through several steps, starting from the agricultural production of the coffee beans, their transport, the roasting and grinding of the beans, right up to the heating of the water for the coffee and the washing of the cups it is poured in.
These steps, common to all modes of coffee preparation, consume resources and emit greenhouse gases (GHG).
To adequately compare the carbon footprint of several coffee preparation methods, it is important to consider their entire life cycle: from the production of coffee, through the manufacture of packaging and machinery, to the preparation of coffee and the waste produced.
Comparing four coffee preparation methods
We decided to study this further and conducted an extensive literature review on the subject. We then measured the carbon footprint of coffee by comparing four methods of preparing 280 millilitres of coffee, namely:
1) Traditional filter coffee (25 grams of coffee)
2) Encapsulated filter coffee (14 grams of coffee)
3) Brewed coffee (French press) (17 grams of coffee)
4) Soluble coffee (12 grams of coffee), also known as instant coffee
Our analysis clearly showed that traditional filter coffee has the highest carbon footprint, mainly because a greater quantity of coffee powder is used to produce the amount of coffee. This process also consumes more electricity to heat the water and keep it warm.
When consumers use the recommended amounts of coffee and water, soluble coffee appears to be the most environmentally friendly option. This is due to the low amount of soluble coffee used per cup, the kettle’s lower electricity consumption compared to a coffee maker and the absence of organic waste to be treated.
On the other hand, when consumers use a 20 per cent surplus of coffee and heat twice the water needed (which is often the case), coffee capsules seem to be the best option. Why? Because the capsules allow you to optimize the amount of coffee and water per consumption.
Compared to traditional filter coffee, drinking a capsule filter coffee (280 ml) saves between 11 and 13 grams of coffee. Producing 11 grams of Arabica coffee in Brazil emits about 59 grams of CO2e (CO2 equivalent). This value is much higher than the 27 grams of CO2e emitted for manufacturing of coffee capsules and sending the generated waste to a landfill. These figures give an idea of the importance of avoiding overusing and wasting coffee.
Coffee production
Regardless of the type of coffee preparation, coffee production is the most GHG-emitting phase. It contributed to around 40 per cent to 80 per cent of the total emission. There are many reasons for this.
The coffee plant is a small stunted tree or shrub that was traditionally grown in the shade of the forest canopy. The modernization of the sector led to the transformation of many coffee plantations into vast fields that were fully exposed to the sun. This added the need for intensive irrigation, fertilization systems and the use of pesticides.
This mechanization, irrigation and use of nitrous oxide-emitting fertilizers — the production of which requires large quantities of natural gas — greatly contribute to coffee’s carbon footprint.
Reducing coffee’s carbon footprint
At the consumer level, beyond reducing coffee consumption, avoiding wasting coffee and water is the most effective way to reduce the carbon footprint of traditional, brewed and soluble coffees.
Coffee capsules avoid the overuse of coffee and water. However, the convenience of capsule machines can lead consumers to double their coffee consumption, thus making this environmental advantage redundant. Consumers should also be aware of the capsule recycling options in the city where they live to avoid it getting sent to a landfill instead of a recycling facility. Better yet, they should switch to reusable capsules.
If you live in a province or country with carbon-intensive electricity production, not using the coffee maker’s hot plate and rinsing the cup with cold water can help reduce carbon footprint.
The electricity used to wash a cup of coffee in Alberta, a high-carbon electricity production province, emits more carbon (29 grams CO2e) than producing a coffee capsule and sending it to landfill (27 grams CO2e). In Québec, thanks to hydroelectricity, washing your cup in a dishwasher has a negligible impact (0.7 grams of CO2e per cup).
By the way, don’t forget to fill your dishwasher!
Shared responsibilities
Limiting your contribution to climate change requires an adapted diet, and coffee is no exception. Choosing a mode of coffee preparation that emits less GHGs and moderating your consumption are part of the solution.
However, more than half of the carbon footprint of coffee comes from the steps taken by coffee producers and suppliers. They must take action to reduce the environmental and social impacts of coffee production.
Our research reveals that assessments based on a life cycle analysis, or the holistic vision, of products like coffee make it possible to challenge our intuitive reasoning, which is sometimes misleading. So instead of avoiding products based on speculation, we need to take a holistic look at our own consumption habits. Change begins at home.
Luciano Rodrigues Viana, Doctorant en sciences de l’environnement, Département des sciences fondamentales, Université du Québec à Chicoutimi (UQAC); Charles Marty, Adjunct professor, Université du Québec à Chicoutimi (UQAC); Jean-François Boucher, Professeur, Eco-consulting, Université du Québec à Chicoutimi (UQAC), and Pierre-Luc Dessureault, Assistant researcher, Université du Québec à Chicoutimi (UQAC)
This article is republished from The Conversation under a Creative Commons license. Read the original article.
Discover more from Watts Up With That?
Subscribe to get the latest posts sent to your email.
This is why carbon is the boogeyman. You can tie almost anything to carbon emissions and claim damage to mother Earth..
Carbon emissions have almost zero impact on the climate. Too many skeptics still accept this nonsense in varying degrees. You see it all the time. Don’t accept any of this false premise. It’s based on pseudo-science. Go from there.
The publication of this ridiculous drivel has probably caused more carbon emissions than all of the coffee I’ll drink this month.
I hope they’ll be taking it further by flying their team to COP257 or whatever conference in some exotic location to lecture the world on their horrendous coffee consumption.
What are the chances that Al Gore guzzles half a dozen double shots of kopi luwak before boarding his jet every morning?
My coffee prep will affect my Social Credit Score???
Hmm, didn’t China and East Germany hire people to report on household social transgressions? Could this be one of those “new green jobs” govts keep talking about?
Progressives like drinking coffee, so don’t expect to see any movement to have it outlawed. (This is why the gas stove ban backfired in near realtime) They mostly only seek to outlaw things that they think conservatives mostly consume.
Since CO2 levels are at near-record lows, and since CO2 is essential for life, including the lives of coffee plants, I will continue to enjoy as much damned coffee as I want (before 4 pm), comforted by the knowledge that with every cup I’m doing my part to save the world.
What a bunch of crackpots, they need to immediately be defunded.
They left out three coffee preparation methods:
Cowboy coffee – boil the grounds until a horseshoe floats.
Logger coffee – boil the grounds until an iron splitting wedge floats.
Railroad coffee – boil the grounds until a steel tie plate floats.
TOTAL POPPYCOCK!
First and foremost, there IS NO CLIMATE EMERGENCY, and this no need to be concerned about carbon or greenhouse gases, the so-called “carbon footprint” of ordinary activities. They claim that our choice of food “… requires an adapted diet, and coffee is no exception.” Malarkey! EAT BUGS, professors! I’m not adapting my diet to suit your tyrannical urges.
These people are utter lunatics, and they do not even know how ordinary people make coffee. A Keurig coffee pod has 0.33 ounces of coffee to brew a single cup of coffee. A drip coffee maker uses only about 0.11 ounces per cup. With a can of Folgers Colombian coffee, each cup costs me 3 cents/cup, while a large box of Keurig K-cups is anywhere from 40 to 75 cents/cup. Money is the great integrater, incorporating the entire production and delivery cycle, so don’t try to claim that K-cups are more environmentally friendly when they cost from 15 to 25 times as much per cup. If they want to do anything, they should try and convince people on purely economic grounds that it is foolish to spend $5 for a cup of Java at Starbucks or Dutch Brothers, 150 times the cost of home-brewed Folgers, not counting the engine idle time waiting at the drive-thru and the mountains of single-use trash that results. But if that is what people want to buy and they have the money to do it, then do it. Buzz off you pseudo-academic fools!
And how much did they get paid for this inane research?
from the Ace Of Spades HQ blog:
http://ace.mu.nu/archives/1%2021%2023%20coffee%20break.jpg
No pollution from our coffee.
The ground beans end up in the compost. The cardboard from the bean boxes goes into the recycling bin and cardboard is one thing that gets recycled in Australia. The milk container goes into recycling and uncertain where it ends up. However the plastic is biodegradable. It disappears after exposure to sunlight after a couple of years.
“Global coffee consumption has been increasing steadily for almost 30 years. With a daily average consumption of 2.7 cups of coffee per person, coffee is now Canada’s most popular drink”
So how much has “global coffee consumption” increased in “almost 30 years”? And what was Canadian coffee consumption per capita before it reached 2.7 cups? The format of this introduction seems more like advertising or propaganda than a scientific report.
In fact, it contains no data whatsoever.”Cups” is a meaningless term when one is comparing the amount of coffee being consumed. Why? Because a “cup” (ie 8 fluid ounces or 0.25L) of brewed coffee can require the use of widely varying amounts of coffee, depending on the processing.
The authors seem oblivious to the vagueness of the data they have presented, and to the arbitrariness of the brewing options they have selected to compare.
The article’s link for extensive literature review takes one to a single 2017 report comparing only three brewing methods:
drip filter
french press
pods
And while wandering off into the field of the environmental impact of the cultivation of this crop, the authors neglect entirely the enivronmental benefits of a) organic coffee cultivation, and b) consumption of coffee beans vs preground or instant coffee (ie. support for small-scale and labour-intensive production).
And only these oversights allow them to declare instant coffee and coffee in pods to be the clear first and second place winners “environmentally”..
With respect to the cited superiority of instant coffee, there’s no way to know how much raw coffee was used to produce the finished powder, and though widely varying, estimates as to its caffein content seem to suggest that a cup of instant has much less of that substance than a cup of filter coffee. Assuming most coffee drinkers will continue to consume it primarily for its caffein content, switching to instant coffee will not necessarily reduce the amount of raw coffee consumed.
And filter coffee seems to provide only half the caffein content from the same amount of coffee grounds as Moka Pot coffee. So maybe organically grown, home-ground, Moka Pot coffee should be the environmentalist’s choice.
Conclusion: if this UQAC “study” was not financially supported by Nestlé, Nespresso, et al, the reason for its publication is a mystery…
otro,
Another problem with “cup” is that although the technical definition may be 8oz, very few people actually use that when referring to a cup of coffee.
As for instant coffee, the one I’ve tried that I could stand the flavor of, I had to use 4x the suggested amount to get any flavor from it. I doubt they considered that.
Cue the climate changers refusing coffee on the plane jetting to COP umpteenth. Cold beer thanks as we all need to make sacrifices for Gaia.
To save the Earth, I would be willing to never drink another cup of coffee for the rest of my life, for a small fee of $20 … I actually don’t drink coffee, and don’t even like the taste of anything with a coffee flavor, so I am willing to accept $20 which I will spend on iced tea.
If there is money to be made for saving the planet, I want a piece of the action.
I would also be willing to paint my front door green, if that would earn a fee.
And I will place an “ELECTRIC” emblem on the back of my ICE Toyota Camry as a virtue signal, if someone would pay for it.
My next door neighbor has solar panels on his roof. I’d be willing to put fake solar panes on my roof to virtue signal, but on the north side of the roof where people can see them from the street. His are on the south side of his roof to face the sun.
The same neighbor has Michigan license plate on his Prius that says “OilsGone”,, that seems silly. I might get a license plate that says:
“I Love CO2”
Obviousy the author has no idea how instant coffee is made. The process probably uses more energy than any other kind, but it is in a factory, not at home. Anyway the whole article is climate change porn of the worst kind.
I grow my own beans and cold brew it. So F off Luciano Rodrigues Viana, Université du Québec à Chicoutimi (UQAC); Charles Marty, Université du Québec à Chicoutimi (UQAC); Jean-François Boucher, Université du Québec à Chicoutimi (UQAC), and Pierre-Luc Dessureault, Université du Québec à Chicoutimi (UQAC)
I suspect that Ziltoid, the omniscient, may be behind this!