There are a lot of ways to look at a latte. We fork over a relatively small amount of cash and in exchange we get a steaming pick-me-up of espresso and milk. But have you ever wondered about the true footprint of that little daily extravagance? How much land or labour was used to produce that single grande latte? How many food miles did it take to get it to the consumer? How much carbon or CO2 equivalent emissions are embedded in it?
Let's just focus on water for a moment. It is more complicated, and surprising, than you might think. Most people's first thought is that the majority of a latte's water footprint is from the brewing process itself. Sure, it takes water to brew the coffee (0.05 litres), but even more to make the plastic lid (2.5 litres) as well as the paper cup and sleeve (5.6 litres). It takes water to process the coffee and grow the sugar (7.6 litres). But it takes the most water to produce the milk (49.4 litres) and actually grow the coffee beans (142.8 litres) needed to make that single drink.
It doesn't take a mathematician to realise that it takes more than 200 litres of water to make the average grande latte and that the vast majority of that water is used to produce the commodities, like coffee beans and milk. And the least amount of water is actually used in the coffee shop itself to brew the coffee. In fact, most coffee shops use as much water to wash their equipment and counters as they do to brew coffee. I'd even go so far as to say that in most coffee shops, more water is used to flush toilets than to make coffee.
WWF's Living Planet Report suggests that we are currently living at the level of 1.5 planets. That means that we are drawing down the Earth's resources faster than they can be renewed. This is further complicated by the fact that many mineral and energy sources aren't renewable at all, or at least not within a time frame that is relevant to humans.
And this is now. By 2050 we will have 2-3 billion more people. On average, each person will have 2.9 times as much income and will consume twice as much as today. If we are to live on our finite planet and use resources at a rate that does not undermine the resources of future generations, we will have to find ways to do more with less.
The issue going forward, then, is how to think, not what to think. Put another way, whatever may or may not be sustainable per person with 7 billion people will not be with 9-10 billion people consuming twice as much.
In short, we need to change the way we think – about everything but especially where and how we live, work and travel as well as what and how much we consume.
Focusing on "how" to think is like the difference between giving a person a fish versus teaching a person to fish: feed them for a day or feed them for a lifetime. So, how do we change how people think? A few lessons come to mind.
How to think lesson one: location, location, location
The place where the materials are produced to make a latte is more important than the quantity of water used in the coffee shop. If water is scarce in that part of the world, then the water used to make a latte is more important. In general, if the water of that region is from rainfall than it is generally less of a stress on the environment than if it is pumped from groundwater or aquifers and used for irrigation or processing.
How to think lesson two: averages are only averages
When assessing where to focus sustainability efforts and defining success, it's important not to put too much emphasis into how performance compares to global averages. For example, in some parts of the world, it may take 10-25% of the average amount of water to produce an item like paper, sugar, milk or coffee and some regions may require 2-4 times the average. Even in the same country, water use can be ten times different depending on numerous variables. Part of this is related to comparative advantage, part of it is related to specific practices and part is related to technology. Rather than measuring success based on averages, it is more important to look at specific impacts of production.
How to think lesson three: consumer choices
Consumer choice does not, in fact, play a key role in how much water is embedded in a grande latte. Of course a consumer can choose to take an espresso instead or even not to drink a latte at all. But would tea, hot chocolate or soda be better? The answer is, probably not.
How to think lesson four: solutions are at the source
The coffee shop has little control over the amount of water that is embedded in the grande latte it sells. It can reduce the water it uses to clean its equipment, or install efficient toilets, but the key areas of water use (eg coffee, milk and sugar) are not grown by the coffee shop. It is the producers that determine the footprint and that is where we need to focus our efforts to increase sustainability.
And here is one of the biggest lessons of all – does it really matter how much water it takes to make a grande latte? It depends.
On a finite planet, however, we shouldn't be trying to maximise one variable. Rather we should try to optimise several. For a grande latte, how much land it takes may be key, how much soil is lost, how many greenhouse gases are produced and whether the producers can afford to feed their children with the money they make from producing coffee, milk or sugar are also important. And, it is not as simple as getting a number for each ingredient and adding them up. Each pound of coffee will be different as will each liter of milk. In short, an index would be more insightful than a single number.
The consumer has no way of knowing the source or the impacts of producing all the raw materials that go into a grande latte. But if they care, they can begin to think about it and to ask. The coffee shop won't know any of this either. But, if it cares, it can begin to ask, and so on.
Changing how we think leads to more questions. More questions leads to more answers.
On a finite planet, sustainability can't be something we choose or not choose. Every product needs to be more sustainable than the last. That kind of thinking could really change the world.
Jason Clay is senior vice president of market transformation at WWF