I am a couple of days late on this, as it should have gone up on Tuesday (April 22, Earth Day), but my most recent Planet S column looks at the environmental footprint of beer (read it here). It is mostly an introduction to the environmental issues surrounding beer production, and some simple ways to reduce the negative effects.
I break it down into three aspects: ingredients, production and distribution/serving. Really the ingredient side is likely the most sustainable. Despite the widespread use of pesticides, the stuff that goes into beer is pretty green. The bulk is locally sourced and all of it is re-used, recycled or composted in some fashion. Production, on the other hand, is energy intensive (maybe not as much as other industries – ahem, oil sands production, ahem). While some breweries are taking active steps to reduce energy consumption, in general the industry has a long way to go to reduce this particular part of the footprint.
What may be the single most concerning aspect is packaging and shipping. Beer not locally produced racks up greenhouse gas emissions at a rapid pace as it is shipped across the country or around the globe. Glass is heavy, as is the liquid in it. Cans might be lighter, but come with their own issues around smelting and their lack of re-usability. And while I have always been impressed with Canada’s industry standard bottle system – the average beer bottle is used 16 to 20 times – there are some odd quirks that could be fixed. For example did you know that bottles not destined for the big boys, who clean on-site, returned bottles get shipped to Quebec for cleaning and then re-shipped back out here? Kind of counteracts the advantages of re-using the bottle so many times.
My suggestion in the column is an obvious one. Drinking beer made close to home, preferably on tap, is the best way to lower your beer drinking environmental footprint. Well, duh. However its obviousness does not make it any less true. And, of course, this doesn’t mean you can’t enjoy that well-crafted import. Just know the environmental costs are higher. So maybe try and do something beneficial to the earth to make up for that less-green pint.
I have been spending a fair bit of energy lately on beer and the environment (including my recent profile of New Belgium). I am contemplating a longer series in one of my venues to allow a more detailed look at the environmental issues related to beer. Stayed tuned for that.
April 25, 2014 at 12:36 PM
The whole Quebec thing is mind boggling. I don’t know why there isn’t a plant out here.
In terms of cans, the energy required to recycle them is very low. But, like you said, it’s getting the aluminum that is terrible. Sourcing sand for glass is nearly free. Remelting cans into new ones isn’t that bad, as long as we can keep it in the recycling system. Another thing to consider with breweries getting custom glass is that it is all one way glass, destined for crushing. In that case, I think cans the better option.