Evaluating the Greenhouse Gas Emissions in the Craft Beer Industry: An Assessment of Challenges and Benefits of Greenhouse Gas Accounting
Bibliographic record
Abstract
A growing number of companies in the brewery industry have made commitments to measure and reduce their greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions. However, many brewers, particularly craft brewers with relatively low rates of production, have not made such commitments. The purpose of this research was to investigate the challenges and benefits of measuring and reducing GHG emissions in the craft brewery industry. The research was conducted in Ontario, Canada, which has seen strong recent growth in the craft brewery industry. A case study and semi-structured interviews among Ontario Craft Brewers were conducted. The case study found that indirect (scope 3 GHGs under the WBCSD & WRI GHG Protocol) GHG sources accounted for 46.4% of total GHGs, with major sources from barley agriculture, malted barley transportation, and bottle production. Direct emissions (scope 1) accounted for only 14.9% of GHGs, while scope 2 emissions, comprised mainly of energy consumption, accounted for 38.7% of GHGs. The case study used case company primary data, and secondary data such as emission factors from external sources. The case study and interviews found that the main challenges in calculating brewery GHGs are secondary data availability, technical knowledge, and finances. The semi-structured interviews, which used prepared interview questions and probes to encourage follow-up answers, also found that the main benefits for Ontario breweries to measure their GHGs include sustainability marketing and preserving the environment. The interviews also found a poor understanding of carbon regulation among Ontario Craft Brewers, which is interesting considering that Ontario implemented a provincial cap and trade program in 2017.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.004 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.002 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".