January 19, 2023
At Sprudge, we adore coffee, but not in a naive, idealistic sense. One of the reasons why drinking speciality coffee matters so much in the first place is that the coffee industry faces major, maybe even existential risks from the effects of climate change and the continued, outrageous exploitation of speculative pricing on the C-Market (also it is delicious).
Coffee enthusiasts also have to deal with the enormous quantity of carbon emissions the sector produces. Up and down the coffee supply chain, greenhouse gases are created from production to consumption. Conscious coffee drinkers place a lot of emphasis on minimising these effects, which helps to explain the increased interest in carbon-neutral, sustainable café operations. These concerns also attract scientists who research coffee, and one recent study that was published this week has caused quite a stir within the coffee business.
Researchers from the University of Quebec at Chicoutimi compared the total emissions of various coffee preparation methods, including filter, French press, pods, and instant, in order to determine the environmental impact of your morning cup. They discovered that coffee pods have a significantly lower carbon footprint than filter coffee. The news outlets have already begun to cover their shocking findings and have even come up with catchy headlines.
A different, more nuanced tale emerges when the approach is examined more closely (and one significant flaw is found therein).
Let's first examine the study's logic, which is generally sound and offers sensible, helpful suggestions for preventing waste when consuming coffee. Researchers looked at greenhouse gas emissions throughout the entire lifecycle of a cup of coffee, including "from the production of coffee, through the manufacture of packaging and machinery, to the preparation of coffee and the waste produced," according to the paper, which was published earlier this month in The Conversation.
According to their calculations, the farm and the coffee machine are the supply chain links with the highest emissions. As a side note, it's important to note that transport—traditionally viewed as a significant producer of carbon gases—gets grouped in with lesser-known contributors like roasting and grinding, the production of soluble coffee, and the manufacture of coffee makers, dishwashers, and cups. We find this choice by the study to be curious and possibly incomplete. Even stranger is the claim made by these researchers that pod brewing is superior to filter because it is a more efficient process; traditional filter brewing is more likely to result in waste due to wasted coffee, overuse of coffee, overheating of water, and additional energy used to keep the coffee warm after brewing.
The core of their argument, which ultimately falls apart when put to the test, revolves around the notion that because filter coffee uses more coffee per cup than do pods and coffee production is the largest source of greenhouse gases along the supply chain, filter coffee generates roughly 1.5 times as much carbon emissions as pods.
The math supporting this result is flawed. According to the study, ground coffee for 280ml of coffee has to be 14g for a pod and 25g for a filter, for a brew ratio of 11.2:1. Anyone who has ever made coffee at home, worked as a barista, or conducted any kind of Google or search related to brew ratios just laughed on their Anaerobic Gaturiri because those statistics are undoubtedly incorrect.
According to the Specialty Coffee Association, the optimal brewing ratio is really "55 g/L ±10%," or around 16.5:1 to 20.2:1, with 18.1:1 being the sweet spot. (Note: Although the 2022–2023 recommendations have been amended, many people may still hold the notion that the gold standard ratio is 15–17:1.) This indicates that instead of the 25g utilised by the researchers, the real quantity of coffee required per 280ml is somewhere between 13.9g and 17g.
This is not just a little bit erroneous; it is so bad that it causes the study's findings to be misinterpreted.
According to the study's estimations of carbon emissions, 11g of Arabica produced in Brazil produces 59g of CO2e, or around 5.4g per gramme of coffee. Instead of the 11g claimed in the article, filter coffee only needs 3g more coffee than pods, and uses similar quantities at the lower end, according to the SCA ratios. Based on the amount of coffee consumed, this suggests that the real change in CO2 emissions from filter to pods is, at most, 16.2g. Even at this higher end of the spectrum, the extra CO2e produced when filter brewing uses more coffee is still less than the 27g CO2e the research claims are produced when making and disposing of pods. Despite the fact that there are many other elements that affect carbon footprint overall, the picture depicted here using SCA standard (and, to be honest, industry standard) ratios suggests that pod coffee may not actually be as advantageous as the research report somewhat paradoxically claims.
Although well-intentioned, to us, this seems like the kind of classic coffee literature for which no genuine coffee experts were consulted. They should have carefully checked those brew ratios because they are drastically out of line with industry best practises and standards, according to any practising barista or expert in the area. However, it appears that they did not do anything like a fact check on the brew ratio, which leads to skewed data and a conclusion that is, to put it bluntly, false.
Other minor concerns with the study include the finding that typical filter coffee contributes more to landfills than do pods, despite the fact that the researchers claim you can easily convert to recyclable pods to further lessen their effect. This fails to take into account the fact that filter coffee waste is biodegradable, making it a better option for trash disposal than recycling, if not on par with it. Recycling, which calls for specialised processing facilities that aren't accessible to all localities, does not guarantee that the garbage won't wind up in a landfill.
Even so, the article offers some helpful suggestions for individuals wishing to drink coffee safely (that don't entail their claim that all they need to do is drink less of it). Most entail deliberate preparation and consumption, such as not brewing more coffee than you intend to consume, not heating up extra water, and not keeping coffee warm on a heating source. All of this is worthwhile to consider as part of a mindful coffee habit.
A more sensible conclusion in this case could be to consume carefully rather than switching to a less pleasant and waste-producing brewing process. We can take concrete actions to make sure we're drinking coffee responsibly. It is crucial to read articles that examine the effects of coffee drinking. They are much required since they force us to examine our own behaviours critically.
However, recommending a move to pods based on blatantly incorrect arithmetic that anyone who has ever worked in the coffee industry would point out is not going to be acceptable to anyone. Maybe in the future, academics will decide to really, you know, engage with this stuff beyond the spreadsheets in the course of their research as opposed to writing about coffee as though it were an interchangeable collection of widgetized variables. It would have been clear right away that their data, and the conclusions drawn from it, were seriously out of wack if they had even tried to make themselves a cup of coffee using the wrong brew ratio in their study. Then there is reality, and then there are fact checks. We risk our own safety by ignoring them both.
Under the terms of a Creative Commons licence, this article has been taken from sprudge. Go here to read the original article.
.webp)
.jpeg)
If you have any doubts, please let me know