Young: Starbucks’ carbon footprint

Oh, Starbucks. Ye of overpriced coffee from improperly roasted, burned and bitter beans have gone and given me yet another reason to avoid your inexplicably named tall, grande, venti and trenta portioned mediocre java.

Starbucks, which sources the beans for its joe from Latin America, Africa and the Asia-Pacific region, recently released a new plan to cut carbon, waste and water usage in the next decade with expanding plant-based menu options as its top strategy.

Referencing a 2018 audit by World Wildlife Fund and Quantis that found the coffee giant emitted 16 million metric tons of greenhouse gases — with dairy accounting for 21% of its emissions — Starbucks CEO Kevin Johnson outlined plans to make the company more sustainable in the next 10 years.

In an interview with Bloomberg, Johnson said he’s pushing consumers to choose milk alternatives made from almonds, coconuts, soy or oats.

“Our aspiration is to become more resource positive, storing more carbon than we emit, eliminating waste and providing more clean freshwater than we use,” Johnson wrote.

I am 100% in favor of everything in that statement. I am all for environmental sustainability. But blaming dairy for Starbucks’ carbon footprint seems a little disingenuous considering the largest source of greenhouse gas emissions from human activities in these United States is from burning fossil fuels for electricity, heat and transportation. Those coffee beans weren’t grown anywhere near your local Starbucks.

According to a report issued in November 2018, more than four out of five new Starbucks are drive-through stores. More than 80% of new Starbucks locations that opened between November 2017 and November 2018 in the United States featured a drive-through. Those automobiles aren’t emitting pixie dust.

Dairy Management Inc., which is funded by dairy checkoff dollars, says while how the emissions were accounted are unknown, they, too, share in Starbucks’ commitment to environmental sustainability.

In a statement provided to Brownfield Ag News from Executive Vice President of Global Environmental Strategy Krysta Harden, the U.S. dairy community was the first ag sector to commission a full lifecycle assessment in 2008 to understand its environmental footprint. That assessment found fluid milk accounts for only 2% of total greenhouse gas emissions in the United States.

From 2008 to 2017, the environmental impact of producing a gallon of milk shrunk significantly and now uses more than 30% less water, 20% less land and has a 20% smaller carbon footprint.

It just doesn’t seem fair that another giant company is singling out animal agriculture as the No. 1 culprit in its negative impact on the environment. Sustainability isn’t only about being environmentally friendly. It’s also about ethics and economics.

The next time you order a Venti Caramel Latte from a Starbucks drive-through, just remember Wisconsin lost 818 dairy farms last year.

Cyndi Young-Puyear is farm director and operations manager for Brownfield Network.