Got a couple of thoughtful comments already about a regenerative coffee brand, Biota (https://www.biotacoffee.com/). I just placed my first order. Learn more:
Not impressed with the sustainability credentials of synthetic coffee.
The claims by synth coffee startups about deforestation, 90% less water or 90% less CO2 are sort of bullshit, and take a worst case scenario. Take water. Coffee is grown in a RAINFOREST. It rains a lot. Most coffee farmers don't use any irrigation at all. The water is there the whole time. It's not going to be used for anything else.
For CO2, sure, spray plantations with pesticide, herbicide and fossil-fuel derived fertiliser and you have a shocking C-footprint. But does that mean you should make coffee in a lab, using secret ingredients with an unknown (but certainly net C-emitting) footprint? Or should you use regenerative agroforestry cultivation and actively sequester C? And make incredibly tasty coffee, a negative food. This isn't hard!
Finally, on deforestation; there are 25m farmers with families around the world dependent on coffee prices. They (and most national governments) don't want to destroy virgin forest. But if they can't feed your kids or send them to school, like anyone, they'll do what they have to. If you want to preserve virgin forest *raise coffee prices*! Give farmers a decent income to invest in their businesses so they can preserve their environments, like we rich people do.
Industrial, synthetic coffee at scale is going to have the precisely opposite impact. It will lead to more deforestation, not less, reduce C-sequestration, have no impact on water use, and condemn the people who are currently growing our coffee to greater poverty. I don't think these companies have a place in a sustainable portfolio.
Got a couple of thoughtful comments already about a regenerative coffee brand, Biota (https://www.biotacoffee.com/). I just placed my first order. Learn more:
https://biotacoffee.substack.com/p/what-does-worlds-most-sustainable?utm_source=url
https://weekly.regeneration.works/p/the-inevitability-of-regenerative?utm_source=url
Not impressed with the sustainability credentials of synthetic coffee.
The claims by synth coffee startups about deforestation, 90% less water or 90% less CO2 are sort of bullshit, and take a worst case scenario. Take water. Coffee is grown in a RAINFOREST. It rains a lot. Most coffee farmers don't use any irrigation at all. The water is there the whole time. It's not going to be used for anything else.
For CO2, sure, spray plantations with pesticide, herbicide and fossil-fuel derived fertiliser and you have a shocking C-footprint. But does that mean you should make coffee in a lab, using secret ingredients with an unknown (but certainly net C-emitting) footprint? Or should you use regenerative agroforestry cultivation and actively sequester C? And make incredibly tasty coffee, a negative food. This isn't hard!
Finally, on deforestation; there are 25m farmers with families around the world dependent on coffee prices. They (and most national governments) don't want to destroy virgin forest. But if they can't feed your kids or send them to school, like anyone, they'll do what they have to. If you want to preserve virgin forest *raise coffee prices*! Give farmers a decent income to invest in their businesses so they can preserve their environments, like we rich people do.
Industrial, synthetic coffee at scale is going to have the precisely opposite impact. It will lead to more deforestation, not less, reduce C-sequestration, have no impact on water use, and condemn the people who are currently growing our coffee to greater poverty. I don't think these companies have a place in a sustainable portfolio.