How personal decisions impact CO2 emissions

Coffee is sometimes referred to as “black gold” and should be considered an especially valuable foodstuff. However, growing and processing the beans requires large amounts of energy. To protect the environment, we should bear this in mind and enjoy our coffee responsibly. Fully automatic and filter coffee machines need around nine grams of coffee per cup, while a coffee capsule contains around six grams. The CO₂ burden associated with the capsules themselves roughly corresponds to that of a gram of coffee.²

Returnable PET bottles are the best option if you’re looking for drinks in environmentally friendly packaging. These bottles are reused and refilled an average of 20 times, and they consume little energy in the transport and logistics chain due to their low weight. Their carbon footprint is even better if they’re produced from recycled material as well. They generate less refuse compared to single-use bottles and consume fewer resources – even taking cleaning and filling processes into account. While returnable glass bottles are refilled more often (up to 40 times), their higher weight is a disadvantage. And what are the worst choices for beverage containers? Disposable glass bottles are strong contenders, since they require a lot of energy to produce and use up disproportionately large amounts of energy and raw materials despite being recyclable. And joining them in last place are aluminum cans, which are manufactured in a very energy-intensive process. Moreover, mining of the raw material bauxite also sometimes involves questionable social conditions and environmental standards.⁶ 

Food waste is considered a big climate offender, and rightly so. The European Commission estimates that 173 kilograms of food per person are thrown away in the EU every year. That’s an annual total of 88 million metric tons of waste. And private households account for 53 percent of all discarded food. A quarter of the food purchased by the average household ends up in the trash, much of it unopened (for example, because its expiration date has passed). Thirty percent of the discarded food can be attributed to the agricultural sector and producers, 12 percent to the catering trade, and 5 percent to the retail sector. Food waste is responsible for around 3.3 gigatons of CO2 emissions.⁹  But packaging can help to extend the shelf life of food items. When it comes to reducing levels of greenhouse gases, the average amount saved by preventing food loss is five times greater than the emissions generated by producing packaging for fresh produce, even if the amount of food that spoils is decreased by just 10 percent.¹⁰  

The distance and the way we travel aren’t the only factors that significantly affect our vacation footprints – our activities at our destination can have a negative impact on the environment as well. So, if we’re traveling from Europe, it’s no surprise that heli-skiing in Canada rates less favorably than a diving vacation in Egypt, which, in turn, comes out behind a hiking trip in Austria.¹¹ If we have to select a means of transport, long-distance buses and trains should be our top choices. The environmental footprint of these options is particularly positive, because they typically have a high number of passengers and a low rate of energy consumption.¹²  CO₂ emissions from cruise ships should be taken into account when booking a cabin: On average, they produce as much CO₂ as nearly 84,000 cars, as much nitrogen oxide as around 421,000 cars, as much particulate matter as over one million cars, and as much sulfur dioxide as over 376 million cars every day.¹³

Most electronic devices needlessly consume power when they’re in standby mode. This function is responsible for around 5 percent of the electricity consumption of an average home in Austria. The power used by devices on standby throughout the EU is approximately as high as Switzerland’s entire electricity consumption. Each year, 811 million kilowatt-hours are consumed this way in Austria alone – a figure that corresponds to the output of a hydroelectric power plant on the Danube or electricity costs of 150 million euros per year.¹⁴