Whats your carbon footprint... about beer, really.

Homebrew Talk - Beer, Wine, Mead, & Cider Brewing Discussion Forum

Help Support Homebrew Talk - Beer, Wine, Mead, & Cider Brewing Discussion Forum:

This site may earn a commission from merchant affiliate links, including eBay, Amazon, and others.
Status
Not open for further replies.

Dave11980

Well-Known Member
Joined
Feb 13, 2010
Messages
75
Reaction score
0
Location
Wentzille
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Beer#Environmental_impact

"A life cycle study of one beer brand, including grain production, brewing, bottling, distribution and waste management, shows that the CO2 emissions from a 6-pack of micro-brew beer is about 3 kilograms (6.6 pounds).[150] The loss of natural habitat potential from the 6-pack of micro-brew beer is estimated to be 2.5 square meters (26 square feet).[151]"

Depending on the accuracy of wiki, I'd say I'm now against any type of carbon tax... lol. Of course, this is just one more reason to homebrew - I'm not a drunk, I'm saving the environment, one beer at a time.
 
I always thought that plants and trees take in CO2 and outgas O2, sooo... wouldnt the CO2 emissions be helping the trees grow? and by helping grow trees we get more oxygen? so in a roundabout way beer is good for me and the planet right???
 
I always thought that plants and trees take in CO2 and outgas O2, sooo... wouldnt the CO2 emissions be helping the trees grow? and by helping grow trees we get more oxygen? so in a roundabout way beer is good for me and the planet right???

Yeah, except if you cut down all the trees, like they're doing in south america.
 
I don't wear carbon soled shoes, so I leave no carbon footprint.
 
So, we are only worried about CO2 emmissions?

Well then, no need to retire my 10 barrell coal fired mash tun or my 15 barrel wood fired kettle. No CO2 emmitted from those is there.
 
Hahaha... Hear that eagle flying?

Eagle????? Let's talk about the Lone Star....flys at the same height....

photo.php
 
So, we are only worried about CO2 emmissions?

Well then, no need to retire my 10 barrell coal fired mash tun or my 15 barrel wood fired kettle. No CO2 emmitted from those is there.

Actually the wood fired kettle is considered carbon neutral reason being is that the tree over its lifetime has removed CO2 from the air so its a basic cycle.

Cornell university
 
Eagle????? Let's talk about the Lone Star....flys at the same height....

rofl

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Flag_of_Texas
It is a common urban legend that the Texas flag is the only state flag that is allowed to fly at the same height as the U.S. flag. Allegedly, Texas has this right inherently (as a former independent nation) or because it negotiated special provisions when it joined the Union (this version has been stated as fact on a PBS website).[12] However, the legend is false. Neither the Joint Resolution for Annexing Texas to the United States nor the Ordinance of Annexation[13] contain any provisions regarding flags. According to the United States Flag Code, any state flag can be flown at the same height as the U.S. flag; the U.S. flag should be on its right (the viewer's left), however. Consistent with the U.S. Flag Code, the Texas Flag Code specifies that the state flag should either be flown below the U.S. flag if on the same pole or at the same height as the U.S. flag if on separate poles.[3]
 

Yes I am aware of a number of urban legends regarding Texas.

Another of which is that Texas can secede anytime we like, however Texas lost that right as one of the provision of rejoining the union after the civil war.

Texas is the only state to enter the union by treaty, and we were our own sovereign country prior to joining the union--not split off from another, or purchased from another, my reference applies to that history and the incredible independent spirit of Texans.

Seeing as how I directed the comment at another Texan, I do not expect anyone from California to understand that.
 
Eh.

If they hand't cut the tree down to fire your kettle, it would still be absorbing CO2.

Its still carbon neutral. The carbon released whether the tree is cut or dies and rots is the natural cycle of C02. Now if you cut all the trees and didn't replant then you have something. But most of my wood comes from my land and when a tree is felled it makes room for a sapling to get light and then it can grow in its place.
 
I have wondered about the carbon footprint of the fermentation process. I have heard of a CO2 scrubbing process some breweries use to capture, clean, and reuse CO2.

Does anyone know if this offsets a substantial amount?
 
Was this really necessary? Seriously?

Double check the facts...loss of natural habitat=2.5 square meters per six pack drank. It that were the rate, NOTHING WOULD EXIST.

Someone mentioned that conservatives use fear-mongering, but liberals do it just as much with information like this. I don't want this to be political, but someone else brought it up.

I've never understood the modern environmentalist movement, and I've tried. REALLY HARD. I go to college with a load of hippie *****ebags who claim it's of the utmost importance. Yet they fail to understand little things like definitions.. Take litter for example: it's stuff that is placed where it doesn't belong. So who cares if I flick my cigarette butt into a lawn that is composed of grass grown from seed that was imported from China? And who cares if I toss my big gulp on the sidewalk or in the middle of the road? Do you think asphalt really belongs there? Perhaps they should stop preaching about "environment issues" and just be straight...they don't want you to do these things because it's ugly. To them.

Maybe I'm wrong. Perhaps they've got it all figured out. SO WE'D ALL BETTER STOP DRINKING BEER. RIGHT NOW! OR ELSE YOU'LL DIE!
 
Was this really necessary? Seriously?

Double check the facts...loss of natural habitat=2.5 square meters per six pack drank. It that were the rate, NOTHING WOULD EXIST.

Someone mentioned that conservatives use fear-mongering, but liberals do it just as much with information like this. I don't want this to be political, but someone else brought it up.

I've never understood the modern environmentalist movement, and I've tried. REALLY HARD. I go to college with a load of hippie *****ebags who claim it's of the utmost importance. Yet they fail to understand little things like definitions.. Take litter for example: it's stuff that is placed where it doesn't belong. So who cares if I flick my cigarette butt into a lawn that is composed of grass grown from seed that was imported from China? And who cares if I toss my big gulp on the sidewalk or in the middle of the road? Do you think asphalt really belongs there? Perhaps they should stop preaching about "environment issues" and just be straight...they don't want you to do these things because it's ugly. To them.

Maybe I'm wrong. Perhaps they've got it all figured out. SO WE'D ALL BETTER STOP DRINKING BEER. RIGHT NOW! OR ELSE YOU'LL DIE!

God bless you...I had the best chuckle reading that...I think hippie ****** bags is about the best way to characterize them, you got that completely right. I particularly like you definition of litter...really puts it into perspective.

But you'd better not let Al Gore read this or he'll track you down and bore you to death!
 
At first I was going to come up with some angry reply to what you just wrote, but you are entitled to your opinion. Also, I am too busy bringing a bowl of kitchen waste out to my ugly compost heap!

I don't consider myself a hippie *********, but I do feel that it is important for all of us here to be at least conscious of our actions.

When I was a teenager I felt the same way as you; I thought that everything we use here as humans was created here so why not just litter. It isn't as if we are adding junk to the world that didn't exist before hand.

I think a little differently now. For myself I have realized that if I throw away my non-compostable items so they make it to the dump and let everything else rot on the ground I will be greatly reducing my part of the trash problem.

Homebrewing seems to have a small footprint. All ingredients are edible or compostable fter use. Bottles are re-used. Heck, even yeast is reused to cut back on plastic vial waste. The main thing is the heat needed for the boil and the electricity needed for the refridge!
 
Its still carbon neutral. The carbon released whether the tree is cut or dies and rots is the natural cycle of C02. Now if you cut all the trees and didn't replant then you have something. But most of my wood comes from my land and when a tree is felled it makes room for a sapling to get light and then it can grow in its place.

If burning something is carbon neutral, then anything we do that doesn't involve splitting or combining atoms is carbon neutral.
 
Yes, there is a team of shills posting this environmental impact crap all over Wikipedia. There is a huge story behind this if you care to research it.

It is politics, pure and simple.
 
At first I was going to come up with some angry reply to what you just wrote, but you are entitled to your opinion.

Myself or PatientZero?

I didn't say that I agreed with his comments, just that it gave me a chuckle. As a professional environmental scientist, my perspective is considerably different, and I have a better perspective on what a hippie ****** bag is. They also fall under the definition of hypocrite. They probably drive a Prius, smoke American Spirits. They have all the answers, and you are wrong, no matter what you do or think. I've had a lot of dealing with hippie ****** bags.

If you really want to discuss the subject, I'll tell the simple fact is that we've got a long way to go in a number of areas, reducing 'carbon footprints' is one of them, but I am not sure how effective that really is. The earth has more emissions from volcanic sources than anything we do. If you really want to do something that has real results you should try an stop the contamination of water, both surface water and groundwater, and shallow soils, where it impacts people, animals, and plants.
 
I say, Let's just brew and try to be environmentally responsible. If we all do a little bit, it can help allot. Don't get me wrong, I'm not trying to save the world. I'm just doing my little part.
 
I say, Let's just brew and try to be environmentally responsible. If we all do a little bit, it can help allot. Don't get me wrong, I'm not trying to save the world. I'm just doing my little part.


Works for me...but only as long as we get to brew with Jose.....
 
All I know is that I wish this "global warming" they keep talking about would kick in, it's been getting progressively colder with noticeably longer winters for about 5 years now.

That being said, shouldn't this thread be kicked to the political section (debate forum) or possibly the drunken ramblings section of the forum so I can forget about it?
 
I'm not going to go all political or anything...I'm just going to propose a simple experiment to show the average person what happens to the vast majority of CO2...Take a 2 cup measure and place about 1/4 inch of baking soda (bicarbonate of soda) in it. Now pour 1/2 cup of vinegar into the same container and let it sit for a minute. While you are letting it sit, go get a candle and bring it to your work area. Light said candle. Now take your cup (which is now full of CO2) and gently "pour" it onto the candle....do not let any liquid exit the measure......candle went out didn't it? Why is that?

Oh and Al Gore can eat me.
 
Myself or PatientZero?

I didn't say that I agreed with his comments, just that it gave me a chuckle. As a professional environmental scientist, my perspective is considerably different, and I have a better perspective on what a hippie ****** bag is. They also fall under the definition of hypocrite. They probably drive a Prius, smoke American Spirits. They have all the answers, and you are wrong, no matter what you do or think. I've had a lot of dealing with hippie ****** bags.

If you really want to discuss the subject, I'll tell the simple fact is that we've got a long way to go in a number of areas, reducing 'carbon footprints' is one of them, but I am not sure how effective that really is. The earth has more emissions from volcanic sources than anything we do. If you really want to do something that has real results you should try an stop the contamination of water, both surface water and groundwater, and shallow soils, where it impacts people, animals, and plants.
You are a wise person. We need people like you involved in environmental issues...not nutjobs who don't understand the gulf of mexico oozes more oil naturally (which is dealt with naturally) than is spilled or that CO2 is heavier than air and most of that carbon winds up right where it came from...
 
I'm not going to go all political or anything...I'm just going to propose a simple experiment to show the average person what happens to the vast majority of CO2...Take a 2 cup measure and place about 1/4 inch of baking soda (bicarbonate of soda) in it. Now pour 1/2 cup of vinegar into the same container and let it sit for a minute. While you are letting it sit, go get a candle and bring it to your work area. Light said candle. Now take your cup (which is now full of CO2) and gently "pour" it onto the candle....do not let any liquid exit the measure......candle went out didn't it? Why is that?

FYI when we talk about CO2 as a greenhouse gas we aren't talking about some huge pocket of pure CO2 somewhere (which would sink given the absence of any wind or heat, like this), we are talking about increases in the average global atmospheric CO2 concentration. Wind and temperature changes prevent the atmosphere from separating into layers of pure gas based on density. Science is always more fun when you bother to learn it right.
 
FYI when we talk about CO2 as a greenhouse gas we aren't talking about some huge pocket of pure CO2 somewhere (which would sink given the absence of any wind or heat, like this), we are talking about increases in the average global atmospheric CO2 concentration. Wind and temperature changes prevent the atmosphere from separating into layers of pure gas based on density. Science is always more fun when you bother to learn it right.

So are you saying that wind magically makes CO2 lighter than the surrounding components of air? Does wind or heat somehow alter the mass of a CO2 molecule to make it lighter than an O2 or other component of air? If that were the case wouldn't all the plants on our planet have evolved to consume another form of energy? I'm pretty sure CO2 is their main source. My point is that CO2 will settle out sort of like yeast. It's heavier than the other components of "air". A single volcanic eruption can emit more CO2 than we do. I don't buy it.

I am a realist though. There is a finite amount of consumables on this remarkable rock we live on. We should do everything we can to conserve those....but tell me how twisted this is....burning wood is now considered a good thing when the greenies were screaming at the top of their lungs 30 years ago that it was evil.....but now they have the "carbon footprint" BS to play off of so it's ok to burn wood...if you plant a tree in it's place.

I never gave a crap either way. Wood, coal, gas....it all came from the same source if you trace it back. Only wood is close to sustainable, but what will the impact of "wood farms" be? Will we not have enough CO2 and freeze?

Ok, rant off. I'm just tired of everybody telling me that every single thing we do is going to kill us dead.
 
FYI when we talk about CO2 as a greenhouse gas we aren't talking about some huge pocket of pure CO2 somewhere (which would sink given the absence of any wind or heat, like this), we are talking about increases in the average global atmospheric CO2 concentration. Wind and temperature changes prevent the atmosphere from separating into layers of pure gas based on density. Science is always more fun when you bother to learn it right.

I suggest you read your link....this has absolutely nothing to do with atmospheric CO2. You are talking about a lake where the temperature gradient changed enough to allow CO2 to release from solution.....
 
So are you saying that wind magically makes CO2 lighter than the surrounding components of air? Does wind or heat somehow alter the mass of a CO2 molecule to make it lighter than an O2 or other component of air? If that were the case wouldn't all the plants on our planet have evolved to consume another form of energy? I'm pretty sure CO2 is their main source. My point is that CO2 will settle out sort of like yeast. It's heavier than the other components of "air". A single volcanic eruption can emit more CO2 than we do. I don't buy it.

CO2 isn't that much denser than the rest of the air; wind and convection currents are more than enough to keep it stirred up pretty well. If atmospheric gasses could really separate out on their own then we would all be dead already.
 
I suggest you read your link....this has absolutely nothing to do with atmospheric CO2. You are talking about a lake where the temperature gradient changed enough to allow CO2 to release from solution.....

The link was about what happens if you have a big mass of mostly pure CO2. My point was that the atmosphere never holds still long enough for gases to separate out by density like near the killer lakes and in the experiment he described (which by the way you can replicate using a blowoff tube from your fermenter to fill a cup with CO2 to pour over the candle without wasting any vinegar or baking soda).
 
I suggest you read your link....this has absolutely nothing to do with atmospheric CO2. You are talking about a lake where the temperature gradient changed enough to allow CO2 to release from solution.....

He was writing that in response to several of your comments which make it seem like you think our atmosphere is stratified and CO2 will "settle out" because it is more dense. This only happens in cases where no mixing occurs - in extremely still, preferably closed systems.
 
Didn't the fact that that CO2 is denser than other components of our atmosphere cause the deaths of 1700 people in the link you provided? The CO2 was able to build up due to the tremendous pressure of the water above it. Something caused that water which was super saturated with CO2 to rise and release the CO2 once the pressure decreased...but where did that CO2 go? If it floated up into the upper atmosphere would that have killed anyone? I'm not saying that zero CO2 ends up in the atmosphere. Most of it settles though and our contribution is minor compared to what the Earth contributes all by itself.
 
Didn't the fact that that CO2 is denser than other components of our atmosphere cause the deaths of 1700 people in the link you provided? The CO2 was able to build up due to the tremendous pressure of the water above it. Something caused that water which was super saturated with CO2 to rise and release the CO2 once the pressure decreased...but where did that CO2 go? If it floated up into the upper atmosphere would that have killed anyone? I'm not saying that zero CO2 ends up in the atmosphere. Most of it settles though and our contribution is minor compared to what the Earth contributes all by itself.

The wind stirred it in to the rest of the atmosphere shortly after it came out of the lake. If CO2 is settling out of the atmosphere then where is it going? How are people able to go in to Death Valley and near the Dead Sea without suffocating?
 
Didn't the fact that that CO2 is denser than other components of our atmosphere cause the deaths of 1700 people in the link you provided? The CO2 was able to build up due to the tremendous pressure of the water above it. Something caused that water which was super saturated with CO2 to rise and release the CO2 once the pressure decreased...but where did that CO2 go? If it floated up into the upper atmosphere would that have killed anyone? I'm not saying that zero CO2 ends up in the atmosphere. Most of it settles though and our contribution is minor compared to what the Earth contributes all by itself.

It killed 1700 people because it was an extremely rapid release of extremely pure CO2, which on a relatively localized and temporary scale, raised the CO2 concentration and lowered the O2 concentration enough at ground level so that the people in that area suffocated. That elevated level would then mix with the rest of the atmosphere from wind, thermal convection, etc. etc. so that if you gave that area just a little bit of time, there would be no danger of suffocation. As was said, if our atmosphere really didn't behave like this, we would all be dead b/c the CO2 blanket that would have formed at ground level long ago wouldn't allow us O2-breathers to live.

Once the CO2 is in our atmosphere, its there to stay. For a gas to escape our atmosphere, it has to be light enough to have a kinetic velocity that exceeds what is called the escape velocity. This is why hydrogen gas isn't abundant in our atmosphere, and why our atmosphere is livable for plants and animals - because oxygen and carbon dioxide are too heavy to escape the atmosphere. Which is yet another reason that, no matter how much CO2 the earth naturally puts out, we are in new territory geologically speaking because we are putting out record amounts of CO2 from human sources that will remain in our atmosphere - barring any huge, unproven sequestration strategies.

The exact ramifications of putting out that much CO2 are somewhat unknown and may be open to debate, so everyone can make their own choices about how to live their lives. But at a bare minimum, its good to be educated on the fact that humans are putting out tremendous amounts of CO2 into the air, raising the concentrations to higher than they have ever been, and we are entering completely new territory with regards to the environment we are creating for ourselves (and kids).
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top