Coffee Houses

[MadisonAvenueFurPrincess]

Does Anyone here share my love for Coffee Houses. There is nothing like just GOOD Black Coffee, preferably Sumatra or a Bold Blend while reading The New York Times wrapped in a nice Fur Jacket. I like the more underground houses, not STARBUCKS.

[Guest]

Starbucks Sucks

 

My partner is building a Coffee House next to our office for his wife to run.

 

She'll carry super brands and my favorites.

 

Just finishing up the deck design for summer sipping. Nice view of Commencement Bay.

 

OFF

[Worker 11811]

All the tigers elephants and rhinos in Sumatra are dying because of coffee.

All the chinchillas in South America are becoming extinct because of coffee.

 

Because of the high demand for exotic coffee, pushing up market prices, there are more and more farmers chopping down virgin forrest just to plant more coffee.

 

As a matter of fact, the forrests of Sumatra are the most endangered areas of the world because there are so many illegal coffee plantations pushing out the natural habitat.

 

All the chinchillas that died or were never born in the first place because coffee farmers in the Andes mountanis used slash and burn agriculture, cutting down all the trees and burning the brush so they could plant coffee, probably number 1,000 times more than the animals that were killed for their fur!

 

With that one cup of coffee you drank last night, you probably killed enough animals to make ten fur coats!

 

http://www.worldwildlife.org/coffee/

[Guest]

don't forget about the Orangutans neither Worker, also facing extinction in the same region as we civilised folk crave for Palm Oil this time! All very sad & also wrong that fur wearers & native hunters get such a bad rap when indeed it's the huge corporations that are getting away with making mass extinctions..... we can only raise people's awareness in the hope to change a few minds & perceptions, nothing wrong with living but at times it's too much take take take for my liking. good link worker.

 

http://www.orangutan.org.uk/

 

Nowt beats a nice cup o Char

[ReFur]

I am a coffee lover! Where I live we do not have coffee houses like in urban areas, but I love them, too!

 

I have a feeling that those who drink colas need to be added to the problem, Worker. Aren't they made from the same beans?

 

I do see this as similar to the fur argument. The rules used to harvest animals and CITES were needed to control a serious problem. Did that mean that the fur industry needed to go away? No!!

 

The use of lands in third world countries affects us all. Saying those who drink coffee are the culprit I would disagree.

 

For instance Fish farms are causing terrible environmental problems. Farm land run off from Pig, Cattle and Poultry farms creates terrible environmental problems. Our fish are full of poison.

 

It is also nice to know that there is not just one way of looking at issues.

 

When one issue is picked out and then labeled the curse of the world, it usually is something that person didn't like any way.

 

The problem with third-world land use is not the issue of the product. If coffee doesn't sell they will switch products. The problem is the land use laws and rules.

 

I do drive a small gas efficient car. I don't smoke. I re-cycle. I live as much of a green life-style as I can.

 

In this world environment. I will enjoy my large cup of coffee every morning and feel no shame.

 

Linda

[Guest]

True and False;

 

The big movement in specialty coffees now is "Shade Tree Grown" and "ORganic". I find these at my Tree Hugger Food Coop as well as my favorite guy I've been buying from since 1970.

 

the methodology is to grow the coffe bushes in the shade of much larger tropical trees as tehy naturally occur.

 

The coffee is not only benign to the environment and wildlife but is MUCH better coffee.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

OFF

[Guest]

In Germany you can buy Leopard friendly tea and coffee.

 

There is NO doubt that workers assertions are true.

 

Tobacco and Tea plantations ...as are cocaine...on the other hand CAN be host to abundant wildlife: no shortage of Jaguar in Columbian cocaine plantations I hear; or leopard in Indian tea plantations. In India, the hunters ONLY target man eaters....the Hindu and Moslem live alongside the leopard when they can.

 

Enjoy your coffee by all means but check where it comes from; and when Starbucks shout the loudest about fair trade etc then there is something very wrong.

 

I agree with you Madison the underground coffeee shop culture is best. We have very little of that left here now; its all starbucks.

 

Having said that I had a starbucks yesterday. I had tea though. They had a Paul McCartney cd on offer to "starbucks members ". I pointed out to all the staff that I thought they were into fair trade, and pointed out the mccartney cd. They scratched their heads. I said "Well think Inuit produce".

 

Peruvian coffee has wiped out chinchilla and west african coffee has exterminated the leopard there. A people who are quite happy to live with leopard for thousands of years because they are hunters and need and value it, over a generation have become coffee pickers. Many are children. The leopard starves because it prey has been displaced. So they see a seven year old coffee picker on 50 cents a day. Then the village searches for the missing child, and finds it three weeks later up a tree rotting. The leopards get massacred. The coffee gets labelled fair trade.

 

If you then choose to drink west african coffee it is up to you. BUT the point I think worker is making is that some of the people who would see nothing wrong with that would have the nerve to criticise the fur trade , when for thousands of years the west african leopard was harvested for its fur and allowed to live.

[Joe]

Maddy, can you suggest some superb coffee houses in Manhattan/Brooklyn that we should try?

 

I'll be in the city later this month; one of my favorite places to go with my European friends is Epistrophy on Mott & Spring, sort of outside Little Italy around the corner from Lombardi's pizzeria. Other than that, though, I've had some amazing cups in New York, but don't remember the names of the coffeehouses. In Rome, I almost bought my own Macchina Del Caffe to save a few euros. At one point, I was spending about $8 American on coffee/redbull per day. Here in Philly, there's a Starbucks right down the block from my office. One of our interns also works there, so we're drinking 'free trade' round the clock in the studios...I don't mind it, but I miss caffe macchiato (vero). The real stuff that you stand up to drink...especially from Caffe Sant'Eustachio or Caffe Tazza D'Oro. I believe you can get Tazza D'Oro in New York since they've expanded. Am I right?

 

ciaociao

[Guest]

Don't mean to rain on your parade Joebut Starbucck's had burnt their beans from day one.

 

I went to their first shop in the Pike Place Market along with the guy I still buy coffeee from in 1970. My first bag of Starbuck's was my last after tasting my friends beans.

 

There are several others on the West Coast like Torattsiafore in Seattle, Stump Town and Cobos in Portland and Capricorn in San Francisco. Frank Martin here in Tacoma isn't bad either. They are all into Shade Tree Coffee.

 

It's kind of like Italy here where just about every small shop roasts their own.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

OFF

[MadisonAvenueFurPrincess]

Robert De Niro has a new coffeehouse in Tribecca, I heard. I often go to Dean And Deluca in Rock Center, great view of NYC

[MadisonAvenueFurPrincess]

Worker, CHINCHILLAS going EXTINCT, Lets see would I rather have Coffee or CHINCHILLA Give A Lady a Glass of Champhayne!

[Joe]

But D+DeL is a chain, Maddy! What about the underground places you spoke of? And don't give me that "if I told you about them, then they wouldn't be underground, now, would they?" bit. But I will look for DeNiro's place. Is it in his new "Downtown Hotel"?

 

Yeah...OFF...I don't dare get my caffe...er...espresso from Sbux EVER. When I landed Stateside, I lapsed into my old dirty American habit of adding a huge amount of sugar and creamer. <- Will that word get censored, I wonder?

 

ciaociao

[MadisonAvenueFurPrincess]

Jack's On W. 10th St., Maybe The Best In The City, besides if the stalkers are online, I dont wear Fur out much in the Summer.

[Guest]

oh you spoilsport Madison!

Bsides which I ain't met a stalker or an anti with the guts to take on a Russian chick yet!

 

WEAR YA FURS GAL!

 

Yes you are corrct off the tree shade cofe is the stuff.....that means the leopard prey deer/antelope are still around; and the leopard does not seek out small humans to eat as replacement.

[Worker 11811]

One thing I also notice is that people tend to use the word "organic" as another word for "environmentally friendly." The problem is that this isn't necessarily so.

 

Think about this for a second. Modern farming methods have been able to produce more food on less land with smaller amounts of pesticides and artificial fertilizer and less labor. "Organic" farming uses MORE land and a GREATER amount of labor and needs MORE fertilizer per unit of land to produce FEWER crops per unit of land.

 

In terms of habitat destruction, "organic" farming is WORSE! You have to cut down more trees and displace more natural wildlife to do it. Further, the use of manure and other things as fertilizers aren't necessarily good.

 

Do you remember the spinach scare we had not so long ago? The source of the E. Coli contaminating the food was traced to an ORGANIC spinach farm! They were using cow manure to fertilize their crops and that manure contained the E. Coli bacteria. That bacteria got into the food chain and poisoned the whole lot of food!

 

So, my response is, Yes! Use modern farming methods! When used wisely, modern pesticides and fertilizers are a GOOD thing! We can use LESS land and displace FEWER critters and destroy less natural habitat.

 

Overuse of chemicals is bad, of course! Modern farmers ought to take a page from the old playbooks. If they can use more earth friendly methods, they should but, on the other hand, it shouldn't be at the expense of reasonable production.

 

In other words, I say that we shouldn't be talking about "Organic" farming.

 

We should be talking about "Responsible Farming."

[Guest]

Not always the case worker; but point taken. What I would like to see on products isn't ORGANIC...because as you say if it becomes industrialisd it uses greater land....but TRADITIONALLY farmed.

The fertilizer is provided by animals in the environment; fields rotated etc.

 

A true farm has both animals and crops. And one that doesn't is likely to displace wildlife and destroy habitat its true.

 

Organic apples I have seen in huge areas. Better is the small orchard with pigs and pheasants running around it. Problem is the farmer has to specialise so ends up concentrating on the apples and expanding; because he can't make money out of the pigs because of cheap imports, and can't make money from the pheasants because suddenly everyone thinks game brid shooting is cruel. So all the OTHER abundant wildlife that such a traditional encourages, get displaced as the organic orchard gears up for the supermarket; and expands into the fallow field and the cabbage patch and the hedgerow and the beehives go.

 

Support your traditional local farmer; its the only way.

[Worker 11811]

It all comes down to the number of dollars or pounds a farmer can make per acre of land farmed.

 

There comes a time when the farmer must make use of economies of scale. Large "factory farms" are the only way we, as a society, can produce enough food to feed the masses, at a price the people are willing to pay, using the land we have left without destrying more habitat.

 

Organic/traditional farming is great. I agree that it should play an important part in the picture. But the cost of farming this way is prohibitive. The farmer has to charge more for the goods. Lower class people are not going to be willing or able to pay $2.00 for a single apple grown on an organic farm. There needs to be a way to provide good food to them at a decent price.

 

I'm not saying we should move to a completely commercialized factory farming system. I think a modified system where large farms use the best modern methods combined with common sense, "old fashioned" methods of farming is the way to go. "Sustainable farming."

[Guest]

The answer is to make the consumer pay more for the product. It isn't farmers who are being subsidised, but consumers.

 

 

Take fishing. Newfoundland fishermen lie idle waiting for stocks to recover. Meanwhile, instead of abiding by normal laws of supply and demand (cod is in short supply cod should go up) the supermarkets want to maintain that slice of the pie. SO they buy from illegal fleets; keepping the price arteficailly low so consumers continue to buy and eat unrealistic amounts of it without paying the true price.

 

This model is the same whatever. Factory chickens; habitat destruction because of intensification etc. Consumers are consuming huge amount of cheap food because every supermarket wants to cut prces to get the most custom. A REAL chicken is

[Worker 11811]

I guess we need to differentiate between non-essential goods and staple goods.

 

There are things that we need to produce so everybody has the opportunity to eat a basically healthy diet. We have to produce grains, meat, fish, poultry, dairy products, fruits and vegetables in large enough quantities to keep store shelves stocked with enough food so everybody can eat. This pipeline must be kept wide open at any reasonable cost. To that end, large scale farming is called for. Unless we do this, there is no way we can feed the population at a price everybody can afford. Modern farming practices can be used to produce the maximum amount of food with a minimum amount of land used and at the lowest possible cost.

 

But the rub is that we have avoid using too many synthetic pesticides and fertilizers to prevent doing too much damage to the environment.

 

Now, non-essential things like coffee, specialty produce and other things we might call luxury items are goods that we can tolerate some price increases on. I don't NEED coffee to live. Nor do I need gourmet produce. These things are good to have but are not necessary.

 

Where price increases in non-essential goods can be tolerated, we can NOT tolerate a similar increase in staple goods.

 

So, subsidising the consumer isn't necessarily a bad thing. We just have to be more careful that we don't encourage producers and retailers to increase production of goods that damage the environment too much.

 

(I say "too much" because there is NOTHIG that humanity, as a modern civilization, does which doesn't do SOME kind of damage.)

[Guest]

see using that logic would mean beer n wine n spirtits would be a luxury item......? Apparently we can get by w/o them in our lives....?

 

Much prefer a Fat Tax where anybody whose overweight would pay more for their goods incl fuel, I'm sure that would sort out the overfarming & stripping of the planet's resources...... those that plead they're "big-boned" or have "active glands" would get taxed even more in my new world order.....

 

Simple really when yer think outta the box!

[Worker 11811]

Beer comes from grain. And, if we subsidize grain production, there will be excess grain. As you know, there is a move to make ethanol from grain to be used as fuel.

 

There's no reason why beer should be taxed as a luxury. It's a byproduct of fuel production!

[Guest]

quote:

 

To that end, large scale farming is called for. Unless we do this, there is no way we can feed the population at a price everybody can afford

 

That isn't quite true. After WW2 people in the UK were totally self sufficient except for things like bananas. But we could 90% feed ourselves. Yes some things were still rationed. Since the 80s, there has been huge development of countryside and especially under this government for things like intensive arable crops.

The result is that 60% of British songbirds have vanished.

 

And what is the result? Now 70% of our food comes from abroad.

Yes food is cheaper; but poor animal welfare , poor tasting produce because it out of season and strains to grow under chemical influence so A can undercut B , and most arable being for things like rape seed ....this doesn't work out with your point. I wish it did.

 

Everybody can afford

[ReFur]

There is another aspect to this.

 

A few of you know I was very sick when I first joined the den. To shorten a long story, I had developed a life treatening sensitivity to chemicals and many foods.

 

I eat organic as much as possible and read labels more than Fur Den posts.

 

This is what is being missed here: Organic is a word that has been allowed to be basterdized in the US. Corporations have successfully lobbied and the word is used many times when it is not. Just like the word Natural.

 

There is an interesting book out called "Who bought the farm". If any of you are interested in things like this it is a small book that is also on audio.

 

Linda

[White Fox]

One of the problems with the organic industry has been deciding what is Organic. Sounds so simple doesn't it. Why even a child could define it.

 

But wait... Is a farm organic if they use fertilizer? Is a farm organic if they use manure from cattle that receive any kind of drugs?

And above all. Is there anyone to police that.

 

There is a chicken farm that produces eggs not far from me. The owner was telling me one time that there was a farm that produced specialty eggs for the food businesses and stores in Toronto. He supplied them with eggs at that time from chickens that were raised on the floor and not in cages. Brown organic and white organic. Chickens fed with special foods, etc. I don't know if he still does as that was 5 years ago. Sounds good doesn't it. Fantastic business to get into. And as you probably guessed, he had nothing but birds in cages. Some brown and some white. (By the way, for those city slickers here, brown chickens actually do pretty much lay brown eggs! And white ones lay white eggs. )

 

Others have hit the nail pretty much on the head here. It has so much to do with economics. Farmers will produce what you want IF you are willing to pay for it. But, if you ask them to give you that food, and you then say "Oh it is too expensive, I am going to buy from the big food chains until you provide it for the same price with the same quick availability" you will unfortunately never, never, never see it done. Most governments will NEVER encourage it.

 

Have you noticed how in North America much produce is now from Mexico? We refuse to pay the price from American and Canadian farms. And above all we refuse to buy from our farmers if they use spray so we are deciding to not allow them to use spray. "If they can't compete we will buy from those who can." So, we buy food from Mexico. Where some of it is sprayed every day with high powered pesticides that our farmers would NEVER use. YES! Every Day! In Canada the same plant is maybe sprayed two to four times in it's life time with pesticides of a fraction of the toxicity.

 

W

[Guest]

I'm back and this one has moved along.

 

They reason I use the term "Shade Tree" is to describe literaly how the coffee is grown. In the shade of larger indigeonous trees.

 

Not only is it quite natural but very organic in it's original meaning.

 

Amish farmers are Organic Farmers. Most others that use the term "ORganic" are complying mainly to the California Organic Farming Practices that are set in order to be sold in CA as an Organic product.

 

Otherwise you have to depend on the place you buy your produce or groceries. This is why I belong to a Food Coop. They/we research the farms and food sources to vaildate their worthiness.

 

 

 

OFF