Bingo. I’ve actually gone in the opposite direction. I now order green coffee beans and roast them myself, after which they get ground up and used with a Chemex. There is nothing finer.
The Keurig craze is another example of going away from quality and toward convenience. Cell phones are another example (when considering voice sound quality).
I have to agree: AeroPress FTW. I use the inverted method w/ a stainless steel filter. I finally got the SS filter to let more oils through, not b/c of a paper-use concern (though the paper filters are very small and can be reused several times). And with fresh-ground dark shiny “espresso” beans – ahhhh!
I honestly thought Kuregs were in decline because everyone I know who has/had the machines said they broke, and I’ve seen the packages of cups on clearance. Weirdly I have a 24 pack of hot chocolates that I got as a ‘sampler’, but have been sitting in my cupboard for almost two years now. I think my university has a K-machine in the main library but I haven’t really had a reason to study there, and donating them to a food bank seems almost rude.
So yes, single serve coffee is the wrong direction. But…, Who gets to decide what’s “acceptable environmentally okay behavior” and what’s not? Having coffee shops is arguably using more resources vs not having them. Making coffee machines and espresso machines is using more resources than just using traditional kettles etc. Importing coffee (even across town) is arguably more using more than drinking water. Heating the water is using more resources than drinking something at room temp. Etc…, etc… I know many believe they can’t function without coffee but arguably coffee is a non-essential beverage.
So, who gets to decide which behavior is too much waste and which behavior is acceptable waste? Should you have to use a reusable cloth or metal filter vs a disposable paper filter? Should you have to hand grind the beans vs use an electric grinder? Or should you be required just not to drink anything but water since it’s the only essential beverage and everything else is luxury?
Note: I’m not trying to be snarky. It’s a serious question. Who gets to decide? Do we all vote? Does we pass laws prohibiting certain ones? Do we just “let the market decide” and try to influence the market to our way of thinking (whatever that happens to be?)
The height of irony is that you can find cheap plastic “reusable” single serving containers in dollar stores. They’re marketed as a way to save money by using your own bulk purchased coffee in the fancy single serving brewers.
That line of thinking defies reason because the whole reason for those single servings is to get “premium” coffee on demand.
We use this Keurig reusable filter at my office:
Well it needs to be collected, sorted and moved around. It then either needs a big hole in the ground to store it for the rest of time, or incinerated which has pros and cons.
Either way domestic waste is very easy to reduce, regardless of the scale of its impact.
Maybe I’m missing something, but wouldn’t you be better off just getting a proper espresso machine?
Moreover, most of those old drip pots always have their heating element on so that the reservoir is always ready for the next pot. And all the while, scale building up making the coffee repulsive, meaning a whole pot gets dumped at the end of the day. The Keurig brew at least tends to be consistent, and the reduced energy of only brewing cups that are drunk and only heating water that is immediately made into coffee, and not growing coffee, transporting, roasting, and brewing coffee that gets dumped down the drain has to have some net benefit.
I think the main point is that they don’t make things that much more convenient, produce inferior coffee, and produce maximum waste. It’s kind of a worst of all worlds, being adopted by everybody.
We could go to the “manufacturer pays all end-to-end environmental costs on everything they make” system. It has the combined benefits of “personal responsibility” along with taking care of the environment.
And I suspect that it would cut the benefits from economy-of-scale on this scheme enough that the manufacturers would voluntarily stop producing this product. Or else come up with a less wasteful and destructive means of producing it. Everybody wins!
If that sort of deal isn’t your thing, an equation referencing the destruction/wastefulness vs. a variety of factors (e.g. a life saving medical device that can only be produced in a particularly wasteful way should probably have an easier time of clearing the bar) would probably do the trick. And if we don’t like the results after trying them out for awhile and comparing the effects to the environment, etc. we can adjust the equation.
Though having me in charge would cut down on the likelihood of large corporations buying an adjustment in the equation. 
Drip pots are probably as bad.
But they also produce really shit coffee. Id bundle them in the same categroy personally: inferior, wasteful but slightly more convenient.
French press, moka pot, normal espresso machine etc produce good coffee, minimal waste and take a few minutes out of your day. Someone that can’t justify an extra couple minutes to have a better quality product whilst generating less waste (and saving money) is probably past debating with.
I also like to get very specific coffee, both organic and fair trade and with the exact flavour I enjoy. Far easier when I can just buy a bag of beans.
That’s mad.
None of the convenience with all of the draw backs.
Green Mountain is a fairly reasonable Vermont company, and it’s interesting to see their lifecycle impact statement. The main conclusion is that the “end of life” waste, while consumer visisble, is actually a tiny part of the overall impact of coffee production and consumption. They even claim that the K-cup system uses less energy than a traditional office batch brewing system. Also, they do have a recovery/composting program for corporate customers.
I also appreciate that Green Mountain offers a good selection of Fair Trade coffee, an important certification which has meaningful positive impact.
As for the quality of results: sure, it’s not like a carefully made single-pour cup of coffee over fresh-ground beans, but arguably it’s the next best thing. You can get good quality coffee (try the Organic Sumatran Reserve), and instead of sitting in a can or half-resealed bag getting all oxidized, each serving is sealed until use, it doesn’t sit on a warmer, and there’s no stale coffee oils tainting the flavor.
But gourmet beans ina French press are probably as convenient, taste better and cost less money.
So where’s the benefit?
But why would you want the next best thing when you could have the best thing for less money?
I’d replace the bodum with a moka pot, but same principle 
We have one in our office, and I hate the waste, but I see why it exists. Probably the most difficult thing to do in any office environment is to coordinate choices and delegating responsibility. There’s enough of that to do to get the work done, let alone coordinating kitchen care and coffee production. The k-cup style system solves both of those problems (however insignificant they were in the first place). You get a different flavor for each person without having to consult with anyone else or coordinates choices of flavors. Nobody has to empty the pot, put on a new pot, or ask anyone how old the coffee is, or decide who’s going to keep things clean. My company supplies the coffee, and allows people to ask for the kinds of cups they like, and those stay stocked, along with a variety pack of others. I’m not advocating for these things, and I certainly can’t understand why you’d have one in your home, and there are PLENTY of solid and good-hearted arguments against them, but If you really “can’t see why anyone would have one” you’re not thinking hard enough about how people operate in reality.
My french press has 0 waste. Seems like that is a good goal.
Because that’s not really tenable in most office or school environments?
