Hello! Welcome back to the finale of our week 7 theme on the environmental pollution of coffee! In this last post of the week, we will be re-examining the pollutive challenges that Starbucks face and how they have successfully (or not successfully) reduced their pollution impacts.

In 2018, Starbucks joined the straw-free movement by announcing that it would eliminate all straws in its outlets by 2020 (Caron, 2018). With this movement, the company then had to switch to using recyclable straw-less lids to cover their drinks. The Frappuccino, which requires a straw to drink, was then provided a more sustainable alternative – paper straws. However, with reference to the previous post, the thicker straw-less plastic lids have raised questions on the efficacy of ensuring the environmental sustainability of their operations as the extra plastic may negate the elimination of plastic straws (Mahdawi, 2018). Mahdawi (2018) further corroborates her argument as she finds that only 9% of the world’s plastic is actually recycled. As such, the efficacy of the elimination of straws can be questioned here.

On the other hand, Starbucks has progressively been coming up with new green initiatives throughout its global operations. For example, in South Korea, the company decided to discontinue the distribution of disposable cups in their cafes by 2025 (Lucas, 2021). While they phase out the use of their disposable cups, they plan to introduce a circular cup programme in South Korea, where consumers pay a small deposit for a reusable cup, which they can subsequently return at a kiosk. Upon evaluation, I do feel that this circular cup programme is a plausible way to replace the use of disposable cups as it allows the coffee chain to provide the convenience to customers who are looking to order and go. However, I also believe that there might be negative repercussions to this initiative as some consumers who pay the small deposit may not have an incentive to return back the cup. As such, the reusable cups may not be returned and be disposed off instead, creating more pollution to the environment.

In light of this, I believe once again that it is the onus of the consumer to consume responsibly as there is only so much businesses can do. Ultimately, for corporations to sustain themselves, there needs to be a reasonable amount of revenue generated, of which this revenue is influenced by the ways that corporations are able to feed the consumers demand. Therefore, consumers play a significant role in the environmental pollution created by businesses and producers.

References

Welcome back to the 2nd part of this week’s theme on Pollution By Coffee! In the last post, we explored the pollutive effects of coffee bean production through how the increasing demand of coffee has led to unsustainable crop cultivation practices. For this post, we will be examining the retail side of the coffee industry through examining the environmental challenges of two popular coffee retailers, Starbucks and Nespresso.

Starbucks

The most significant environmental challenge for Starbucks is the foundation of their coffee drinking experience – their strong and sturdy disposable cups. In 2017, Starbucks distributed 3.85 billion paper cups for their hot beverages alone (Wiener-Bronner, 2019). While the paper cup may seem like an ideal material to recycle, most recycling facilities do not do so because of the long and inconvenient process that it takes to separate the plastic lining that makes the cup waterproof from the paper cups that may also jam the machines (Wood, 2019). Furthermore, in a bid to eliminate plastic straws in their operations, the newly designed Starbucks plastic lid that includes a protrusion to drink is thicker (Mahdawi, 2018), raising concerns of the environmental repercussions of plastic pollution.

Nespresso

On the other hand, Nespresso is a coffee retailer that markets coffee capsules using aluminium capsule pods. The extraction and processing of the aluminium is an environmental problem as the aluminium industry is highly intensive and releases a significant amount of energy as waste heat (Brough and Jouhara, 2020). The refining of the aluminium also produces hazardous waste from the bauxite ore. Open-pit bauxite mining which is mostly pursued in developing countries has resulted in ecological destruction (Hamann et al., 2014). Therefore, the production of its main product has significant pollutive repercussions to the environment.

The two examples of Starbucks and Nespresso illustrate the environmental pollution effects of coffee. Definitely, the designs of these products stem from the consumer’s demands for convenience and comfortability. As such, it is not entirely fair to solely blame the coffee industry for the environmental pollution produced. As consumers, we need to understand that our perceptions and behaviour shape the way industries operate to fulfil our demands.

References

While I was sitting at a Starbucks thinking of what this week’s theme of environmental pollution should be, I smelled a strong whiff of aromatic coffee. At that moment, I realised that I had no idea what went into producing coffee and if there were any environmental repercussions to this coffee production chain.

The coffee production chain is extensive, starting from the production and preparation of coffee plants that produce coffee beans to the retail sector and so on. For this post, I will be focusing solely on bean production and preparation and its environmental implications.

The demand for coffee consumption is gargantuan to say the least. Mahoney et al., (2019) found that college students in the United States alone drank an average of 159mg of caffeine daily, which is an estimated one and a half cups of coffee a day. This massive demand for coffee creates challenges in the supply chain, resulting in unsustainable growing methods that create environmental pollution.

Traditionally, coffee used to be cultivated under a shaded canopy of  trees, providing a resistance against topsoil erosion and thus removing the need for agrochemical fertilisers (Blacksell, 2011). However, to cater to the massive demand for coffee beans, farmers have been incentivised to switch their traditional cultivation methods to under the sun cultivation, where there is a lack of shade for the coffee plants. As such, topsoil erosion occurs and there is a subsequent need for chemical fertilisers.

Furthermore, the switch to sun-grown cultivation means that there is need to clear more arable land, leading to deforestation. For example, within a year, Brazil cleared 13,235 square kilometres of forest to make way for coffee production (Jacob, 2021). This loss of a carbon sink becomes detrimental for the environment as carbon capture by the forests is then released into the air. With poor fertiliser management, excess fertiliser is then polluted into streams and groundwater (United Nations Environment Programme, 2021). The long-term impacts of poor fertiliser management have also shown to increase soil acidification and soil hospitality to nematodes and plant diseases, which in turn reduces soil and fertility, requiring increasing levels of fertiliser to compensate for reduced productivity (United Nations Environment Programme, 2021). This illustrates a cycle of excessive fertiliser use, aggravating the existing environmental pollution caused by initial chemical fertiliser use.

Environmental pollution from coffee bean cultivation is difficult to combat as smallholder producers may not have access to certain information and knowledges, resulting in unnecessarily intensive and costly practices that produce chemical pollution that may travel and transform into aquatic pollution.

The high demand from consumers such as myself for a cup of coffee have created a sleuth of environmental problems in the coffee production chain. Now to throw a question back to you: Do you know how much chemical fertiliser goes into making your cup of coffee?

References