NYP Cites Study That Says We Should Drink Less Coffee To Fight Climate Change.
It Takes FIVE DAYS To Charge An Electric Hummer Via A Home Outlet, Just FYI.
January 20, 2023
Kamala Speaks To A Fully Adult Audience As If They Are All In Kindergarten
January 20, 2023Check out this headline.
I had a very strong, caffeinated reaction to that headline.
According to the article, some sadistic Canadian researchers decided to do a study on whether coffee contributes to climate change. You only do that if you’re a sadist. Which these clowns clearly are.
Luciano Rodrigues Viana, Charles Marty, Jean-Francois Boucher and Pierre-Luc Dessureault are the culprits who have decided through their POINTLESS AND SADISTIC RESEARCH, that people need to moderate how much coffee they drink for the good of the planet. Why? Because the process of preparing it takes electricity.
OMG.
If you use coffee pods, you’re not as far down on their sh*t-list as you are if you brew with a traditional filter. Apparently brews with traditional filters have the highest carbon footprint. Instant coffee is the kindest to the environment. But they’re also concerned that if you factor in the convenience of k-cups, you might be inclined to drink MORE coffee, which then cancels out any environmental benefits to them.
THESE SADISTS ACTUALLY SPENT TIME AND MONEY ON THIS STUDY, you guys.
This is the kind of nonsense that makes me even more rebellious. I’m gonna go drink MORE COFFEE NOW because of this.
Cheers.
2 Comments
I’d like to tell this band of drips that if they don’t like coffee, DON’T. DRINK. IT! Pardon me as I pour myself a nice, steaming hot cup of covfefe, (h/t President Trump).☕☕☕☕☕☕
I found the study and tried reading it and seems to be more of a meta analysis than them getting their hands dirty getting the raw data. It also seems to be in bad faith. It starts off stating people tend to drink 2+ cups of coffee per day but then does it’s entire analysis around 1 cup. The single cup heavily favors the single serving pod but when you start scaling up it is likely rapidly overtaken by the more traditional method.