4 ms·
Is that a lot or...? Without a frame of reference I don't know if it's more than a litre of coffee or a litre of asparagus water from Whole Foods.
by Yver 11y ago
Is that a lot or...? Without a frame of reference I don't know if it's more than a litre of coffee or a litre of asparagus water from Whole Foods.
- Piskvorrr 11y agoWell, it's a lot compared to a litre of water ;) But indeed, a comparison to other beverages would be useful, or even a breakdown ("20% of that is from packaging"). Perhaps it's given by the high sugar content?
- deleted 11y ago[deleted]
- morsch 11y agoPer volume of the end product, coffee is worse, black tea is better. Coffee: ~1100 liters of water per liter of coffee. Black tea: ~270 liters of water per liter of tea. Source: The water footprint of coffee and tea consumption in the Netherlands, http://waterfootprint.org/media/downloads/ChapagainHoekstra2007waterforcoffeetea.pdf http://waterfootprint.org/media/downloads/ChapagainHoekstra2...
- pitchka 11y agoAnother nice comparison: Milk: ~1000 liters of water per liter Chocolate: ~17000 liters of water per kg Beef: ~15000 liters of water per kg Sheep Meat: ~10000 liters of water per kg Pork: ~6000 liters of water per kg Butter: ~5500 liters of water per kg Chicken meat: ~4500 liters of water per kg Wine: ~400 liters of water per liter Beer: ~300 liters of water per liter source: http://www.imeche.org/policy-and-press/reports/detail/global-food-waste-not-want-not http://www.imeche.org/policy-and-press/reports/detail/global... (pdf report on the right)
- neppo 11y agoas if I needed more reasons to stick with beer
- rplnt 11y agoWell this is highly misleading. Products that are measured VERY differently are grouped together.
- pitchka 11y agoJust like the statistic of sweet beverages. Of course that beers that include fish stuff require more or less water. Of course that wine produced in dry climate requires a lot of water. Producing a cow, chicken or pig will take a lot of water, probably not much of a difference if animal is located at northern/southern parts or in some shed at equatorial region. I don't understand what is misleading. Data of water pollution should be of more concern than how much water something needs to thrive. This data shouldn't influence your decision of what to consume. Data of pollution should. If you're worried some categories are incorrect then at least you have a lower bound there. Add the water footprint of food that cow or pig eats and then you'll get more accurate. It's no-brainer that raising 60 billion land animals yearly takes a lot of water but it's a silly statistic. The pollution of water that the process creates is more important and a much more relevant statistic.
- rwjwjuwjudf 11y agoThe higher mg caffeine / mL of coffee mitigates that a bit, probably so it's 2x as bad instead of 4x as bad.
- koralatov 11y agoReally? I don't drink coffee, but do drink tea, and I'm pretty sure that people drink them for reasons other than the raw caffeine content per ml.
- tekromancr 11y agoYea, but a lot of people use it simply as a drug delivery vehicle. Getting n mg caffeine into your system is the goal for some folks.