The higher mg caffeine / mL of coffee mitigates that a bit, probably so it's 2x as bad instead of 4x as bad.

Really? I don't drink coffee, but do drink tea, and I'm pretty sure that people drink them for reasons other than the raw caffeine content per ml.

Yea, but a lot of people use it simply as a drug delivery vehicle. Getting n mg caffeine into your system is the goal for some folks.

Another nice comparison:

Milk: ~1000 liters of water per liter

Chocolate: ~17000 liters of water per kg

Beef: ~15000 liters of water per kg

Sheep Meat: ~10000 liters of water per kg

Pork: ~6000 liters of water per kg

Butter: ~5500 liters of water per kg

Chicken meat: ~4500 liters of water per kg

Wine: ~400 liters of water per liter

Beer: ~300 liters of water per liter

source: http://www.imeche.org/policy-and-press/reports/detail/global...

(pdf report on the right)

as if I needed more reasons to stick with beer

Well this is highly misleading. Products that are measured VERY differently are grouped together.

Just like the statistic of sweet beverages. Of course that beers that include fish stuff require more or less water.

Of course that wine produced in dry climate requires a lot of water.

Producing a cow, chicken or pig will take a lot of water, probably not much of a difference if animal is located at northern/southern parts or in some shed at equatorial region.

I don't understand what is misleading. Data of water pollution should be of more concern than how much water something needs to thrive.

This data shouldn't influence your decision of what to consume. Data of pollution should.

If you're worried some categories are incorrect then at least you have a lower bound there. Add the water footprint of food that cow or pig eats and then you'll get more accurate. It's no-brainer that raising 60 billion land animals yearly takes a lot of water but it's a silly statistic. The pollution of water that the process creates is more important and a much more relevant statistic.