Drinking coffee is supposed to be GOOD for us, in spite of all kinds of scientists trying to discover something evil in it.

Of course, dumping guck into coffee is another matter.  You decide what the moral consequences of adding milk, sugar, the finest Afghan poppy might be.  We for our part take ours sin nada.  Or as Balzac is said to have said, "I like my coffee black and bitter, even as my soul is black and bitter."

(Apologies to the metaphysicophobes.)

But really, let us explore this: How again is coffee in any form an environmental issue?  Sure, there is the issue of transportation, in any case, which ought always to be considered.  And the fair-trade, shade-grown issues, which are by no means to be overlooked.

What I am asking is: Is coffee generally, however perfectly produced and neatly transported, an environmental no-no?

To say nothing of tea ...

Needless to say, this is a case for Tom Philpott.

As for the photo of the demonstrators: love the masks, but the horns should be done better; the costumes are OK, but the bellies and udders should be bigger.

The cloven hooves must have vexed the demonstrators all along.  There is in fact a Larson cartoon in which a suburban household of cows are sitting resentfully in front of a boring TV, with the remote in sight, unable to switch to another channel.

Chickens are our cousins! So are other sensitive animals! Enough is enough! No more factory farms!

Still won't ever go to Starbucks.  I prefer to make my own hot beverage at home and take it with me in my re-usable mug.