How nit-picky can these fuckin' people get? They certainly can't make up their minds from one day to the next. You may have come across news headlines about coffee this week, like this one from the BBC: "Coffee pod carbon footprint better for planet than filtered brew." The stories are about a short article published earlier this month that says single-use coffee pods may be better for the climate than other forms of coffee preparation.
The coverage by social media and news outlets came as good news to lots of people who have single-use coffee makers, since they've heard for years that the disposable metal and plastic capsules in their machines harm the environment. Columnist Matthew Yglesias tweeted out: "Vindication". The problem is, the positive take on coffee pods and the climate might not be true.
Despite the hype, it's hard to know how solid the conclusions are in the article that blew up online this week. That's in part because the article isn't a formal study that has been peer-reviewed, which means it hasn't been vetted yet by other experts in the field. The article's lead author, Luciano Rodrigues Viana, a doctoral student at the University of Quebec at Chicoutimi, said in an email to NPR that he hopes to release a peer-reviewed study soon.
Here's where it gets crazy - some jughead doing research into the climate impact of coffee pods says the issue isn't settled. An article on the subject says that coffee pods may have less emissions than other forms of coffee preparation. But a peer-reviewed paper from 2021 found the complete opposite: that coffee pods account for more emissions than other ways of making coffee, because of greenhouse gases from producing the pods' packaging and dealing with the waste.
...
Know someone who'd like these?
Click on the picture above for information on these earrings.
They're only $20.00 with free shipping. You can find something nice for
your Mom, your wife, your daughter or your girlfriend right here:
...
Another load of crap from the libs. We gave up on our expensive Kuereg machine because it's a) wasteful, b) unable to brew a cup of strong coffee, c) expensive, d) expensive to run, even using the DIY refillable cups. d) large footprint on the countertop, e) does not hold enough water, f) wastes money keeping the internal tank of water hot.
ReplyDeleteWe went back to our $12 Hamilton Beach Mr. Coffee knock off that we've had for over 20 years and makes from 2 - 12 cups in the same amount of time at the K cup machine. We buy the plain unbleached cheap filters in a 500 pack. I can make a cup of two of super strong coffee for me, then a couple cups of the wimpy flavored chick stuff she likes for her.
Probably the most cost effective coffee maker ever, an one that made the best tasting coffee, was the 4 cup large version of the Melita funnel brewer, the version that had the built in screen and didn't need paper filters. Cost $1.79, lasted forever, made enough coffee for a couple mugs at a go. These days that's what the barrista guys call a "pour over" and you pay extra for it.
The old filter will compost, as will the coffee grinds. The stuff inside the K-cup is sealed and will never do that. It's obviously less good for the environment, and it's a Who Knows how the price of making the plastic cups stacks up to the price of churning out thin cheap paper filters. But I'd bet that the Mr. Coffee style wins.