Is Hb Good For The Environment?

[tcraig20]

If botanical science has now created a 'wind plant' (cabbage not counted), then surely I could get some seeds in order to grow a money tree.

You'll have to excuse me, my sides have split.

 

[Wisey]

And it is a sad truth that packaging materials probably cost more than the actual beer itself. The old saying is that beer is drunk with the eye. Just about everyone here knows that the price to actually brew a "super premium" style beer and a run of the mill lager is not that much different. But you probably wouldn't buy that boring, unmarked brown box sitting in the corner would you?

Mate for years I have bought that sad yellow box that sits in the corner with 4 X's on it. Not no more, there is more to beer! We are even planning a Redoak Tour with a couple of mates!

 

[mje1980]

Hell, I'm not suggesting that you compare CUB's carbon footprint to your own homebrewery... that's just plain ridiculous. I'm not trying to manipulate numbers either. But a discussion on environmental issues is a discussion on the global impacts, so you have to compare apples with apples. You can do it volumetrically, or per capita. So, looking at it on a per capita basis, work out your footprint and divide it by the number of people who solely drink your beer (ie 1). Now take a major, and divide their footprint by the number of drinkers. You can't get away with the fact that the majors beat homebrewers on efficiency metrics.

And another thing - "carbon footprint" is just a bees dick of the total lifecycle impact of a brewery - any discussion of the environmental impact of brewing needs to cover more than just carbon emissions.

FWIW - in the interests of disclosure, I'm not employed by a brewer, but I am an Enviro Scientist who runs lifecycle assessments and impact analysis - this is not stuff I'm making up, or theorising about, this is what I do for my bread and butter. And I'm trying to take bias out of the equation by showing you what the real story is on an equitable playing field.

So, who do you believe does more damage to the environment on a yearly basis:

A) All mega breweries worldwide put together.

B.) All homebrewers worldwide put together.

 

[shonky]

So, who do you believe does more damage to the environment on a yearly basis:

A) All mega breweries worldwide put together.

B.) All homebrewers worldwide put together

As many have pointed out this question is only valid if you are talking about per capita or per lt. By either of those measures, and they are the ONLY ones that count, homebrew would lose hands down. This is homebrewers 'inconvenient truth'.

My 2c.

 

[mje1980]

As many have pointed out this question is only valid if you are talking about per capita or per lt. By either of those measures, and they are the ONLY ones that count, homebrew would lose hands down. This is homebrewers 'inconvenient truth'.

My 2c.

Ok, lets take per litre. Yes, on a litre basis, the mega brewery may use less energy, BUT, when you multiply that amount by the millions of litres they brew every year it way outstrips us home brewers in terms of energy usage and environmental impact. It's pretty simple really, but i guess im wasting my time.

Time for a highly inefficient and energy consuming ale.

 

[Renegade]

Im losing track here.

You can ONLY measure as a point of comparison with a method such as 'per litre'. And why wouldnt you look at a per year basis ? That's the only logical approach to comparison.

Im still not convinced that homebrew would 'lose hands down'. Transport of goods and manufacture of bottles is really going to tip the arguement in HB's favour.

 

[bum]

There's still heavy transport involved in HB materials. And in most cases there would be more double handling in that transport. Moving the commercial beer would still be out in front but not far enough to counter the comparative wastage on the homebrew side.

IMO, obviously. I have no numbers to back that up.

 

[bum]

Oh, the production of fermenters and cubes etc has a dramatic polutive effect. Even moreso than glass (yes, we buy fewer fermenters than stubbies but it must be considered none the less).

 

[tcraig20]

There's still heavy transport involved in HB materials. And in most cases there would be more double handling in that transport. Moving the commercial beer would still be out in front but not far enough to counter the comparative wastage on the homebrew side.

IMO, obviously. I have no numbers to back that up.

An example of homebrew double handling: I live about 120kms north of the Joe White malting plant in Tamworth. To buy grain from there, it is first shipped to Brisbane, then shipped here. A 1300-odd kilometre round trip.

 

[geoffi]

How about all the idiotic advertisements for megaswill polluting the airwaves? And just think of the environmental damage caused by advertising execs with superfluous i's in their names hooning around in their Lotuses thanks to those lucrative megaswill contracts.

The environmental vandalism of megaswill knows no bounds!

 

[Thirsty Boy]

we were given a "rough" number for the amount of impact the transport has in a mega beer. 1 dollar per carton for interstate transport. Lets add another dollar to that for local delivery. So $2 go to logistics ... even if you ignore the fact that that figure includes wages and profits etc - and just convert it to diesel. Its still only a litre and a bit of fuel.

If I drive to G&G and back... I burn that much fuel.

I think that the only area where you could even imagine that homebrew would come out in front is because of the lack of packaging and the re-use of bottles.

But ... I know at work when they decommissioned the bottle washing plant (we used to re-cycle 750ml bottles) one of the reasons was the environmental impact. A total cycle analysis showed that it was by far more energy efficient and had a much smaller total environmental impact (and was also cheaper) to buy new bottles every time, than it was to run the plant that cleaned them out for re-use. It literally took more energy to wash a bottle out for re-use, than it took to melt it down and recast a new bottle.

Screw the environment -- if you drink enough homebrew you will be so drunk you wont notice the lack of dolphins, which would be a good thing anyway because after the icecaps have melted the *******s were going to be a real pest in your backyard anyway.

 

[ant]

So, who do you believe does more damage to the environment on a yearly basis:

A) All mega breweries worldwide put together.

B.) All homebrewers worldwide put together.

You're not wasting your time, I guess you're just seeing it from a different perspective.

As to your question, on an absolute basis, A). On a unit basis (per L, per capita), B).

Think of it this way. Say there are 100,000,000 beer drinkers worldwide and HB'ers were 1% of that. Say we've brought environmental impact down to a common denominator, where impact per Major is 1 unit and impact per HB'er is 5 units. So the environmental impact is:
100,000,000 "megaswill" drinkers x 1 unit = 100,000,000
1,000,000 HB'ers x 5 units = 5,000,000
Net impact = 105,000,000 units

Now if everyone was a megaswill drinker, the impact would be:
101,000,000 megaswill drinkers x 1 unit = 101,000,000 units

If everyone was a HB'er, the impact would be:
101,000,000 HB'ers x 5 units = 505,000,000 units

Regardless of what type of beer you drink (megaswill vs HB), you'll still drink it. There are still the same number of people drinking in total. If they all brewed HB there would be a greater environmental impact; it comes back to economy of scale and efficiency.

HOWEVER, we don't brew our own beer to be environmentally friendly, we brew our own beer because we enjoy the experience and the vast array of styles we can brew. And there's nothing wrong with that... just don't be mistaken that it is environmentally the better option.