Marc Gunther relays these figures from the WWF’s Jason Clay on the amount of water in a latte. The total? Over 200 liters for one cup.
Here’s the breakdown, by liters, of the water needed to make that latte:
0.1 for the water itself
2.5 to make the plastic lid
5.5 to make the paper cup and sleeve
7.5 to grow the sugar
49.5 to feed the cows that make the milk
143 to grow the coffee
He doesn’t think we should avoid lattes, since water - in the form of tropical rainstorms in coffee growing regions - isn’t in short supply. In comparison, rice farming uses 58 percent of “all water on the planet used by people for any purpose—farming, manufacturing, cooling nuclear power plants, swimming pools, showers.”
The issue isn’t that we should stop using water but that we should start using it more intelligently, to avoid shortages and water resource wars in the future. Shifting weather patterns arising from climate change will also create new scarcity in some areas — and floods in others. Environmental Leader quotes this report from Ceres, which works on sustainability:
Manufacturing and agriculture sectors can expect decreased water allotments, shifts towards full-cost water pricing and ever-more stringent water quality regulations, according to Ceres. With the strain on overall water resources, the public will more intensely scrutinize corporate water-use practices.
This was apparent in news reports this week about California’s water shortage and the threat to farmers, who supply the bulk of the nation’s fresh produce. But it’s also clear that the threat of shortages — real or perceived - can be used for political aims regardless of the reality.
March 5th, 2009 at 4:20 pm
Wow! 200 is an ecological eye-opener.
In fact, the $3 latte that we sip may be costing the planet a lot more to provide. Of course, there is a good cost (part that drives the wheels of economies)and the bad cost (part that leads to wastage).
By focusing sustainability initiatives on the bad cost, we would be more intelligently driving the wheels of economies faster in an ecologically responsible manner.
March 5th, 2009 at 8:09 pm
These trivia are interesting, but non-actionable (do you want to save water or drink coffee?)
If the price of water (energy, etc.) reflects the resource’s “true value”, then the price of the latte is appropriate — and no further action is required. Read Hayek’s 1945 “Use of Knowledge in Society”
David (aguanomics.com)
March 6th, 2009 at 3:43 am
[...] How much water is in a latte? March 5th, 2009 by Samuel Fromartz Source : MIT Sloan Management Review Link to article [...]
March 6th, 2009 at 8:49 am
I need to see the data and methodology behind these “statistics” in order to accept such a sweeping generalization, and I have just a few questions about data sources, collection ,and analysis methods.
One example. If you counted the water (rainfall) that grew the coffee, etc, did you count only the water absorbed by the plant or did you count the rainfall? WHere id you get is data? Did you DEDUCT the collateral uses of the same water (it’s a reusable resource) when it was used to grow other crops, for cooking, sanitation, etc. It would be like counting the annual salary (or whole day salary) of an executive to attend one 30-minute meeting. I need more data and methodology before I jump on Mr. Clay’s bandwagon.
This is the internet you know, not a peer review forum. People can make any claim they think no one will questions. Mr. Clay’s title and background provide no provenance of this ability to do reliable research. They do provide evidence of some compulsion to disseminate his viewpoint. Oh, and I will not accept a “Certificate of Authenticy.” I need data and methodology.
March 6th, 2009 at 2:37 pm
Thanks all for the comments.
David, I’m not sure the external (enviro or social) cost is measured in the price of a latte, which is the rationale for verifiable eco- or social claims, such as organic or fair trade, which are then reflected in the price. I think the whole argument of the sustainability movement has been that price does not adequately reflect true cost, hence the need for such schemes as carbon pricing.
Barry, I would refer you to Clay for questions about methodology at WWF.org. I think the larger point though is to think about water resource issues. In the farming example, I would assume that WWF advocates for drip irrigation, which uses less water per plant (per output of bean) and is thus more water efficient. I think one can know how much water a field consumes per year, the pounds of coffee that come out of that field, and thus the water in the beans used to make one cup of coffee. And if one could target the water more directly to the tree with drip irrigation and reduce consumption then the beans would be grown with less water.
March 9th, 2009 at 6:08 pm
If reduction does not work because you will go insane at noon if cut on coffee by 100 %; still we have a good opportunity to quantify our efforts on “use less”, restore, reuse and recycle, vs., impact on the GDP (Revenue minus cost):
Revenues will come from using less (drinking black mild coffee –less grain /cup-, no milk, no sugar) and recycling (same personal cups). Based on the breakdown, savings will be about 135 lt. of water or equivalent $Y.
Now, Cost ( $X GDP ) will be: The cattle business will go down, meaning GDP will go down by $X; plus, you will be half-sleepy during the day and your productivity will be reduced in the same proportion, meaning additional $X of GDP down…
So, depending on your economic contribution to GDP, it seems like $X > $Y and the economy will go down.
As an alternative, drink black mild coffee and with the water saved, two barrels of heavy oil can be produced, keeping the economy up and running …
Luis J Rodriguez
March 25th, 2009 at 5:08 pm
[...] MIT Sloan’s blog comments on the significance of the 200 liters of water required to produce a latte: The issue isn’t [...]