Follow the logic:
- The vast majority of fast food restaurant patrons pick up their orders at drive-thrus.
- The time spent waiting in line with engines idling puts pollutants in the air that contribute to climate change.
- Changes are needed in the way consumers shop at fast food restaurants to reduce greenhouse gases and protect the environment.
- All of the above could mean that drive-thrus have to go.
That logic, according to an article on the QSR Magazine website, is making its way into the thinking of municipal officials across North America who are looking to reduce the amount of greenhouse gases making their way into the atmosphere.
According to a study at the University of Alberta in Canada, cars idling at 135 fast food restaurant drive-thrus in Edmonton put 9,000 tons of greenhouse gases into the air over the course of a year. That figure represents 0.05 percent of that city's total annual greenhouse gas emissions.
Peter Boxall, a University of Alberta environmental economics professor, called the emission levels "significant" while pointing out the numbers do not factor "in the cost of congestion or other traffic-related issues" related to the operation of drive-thrus.
Toronto's Public Health department (the city has an anti-idling law on the books) estimates that there were 440 premature deaths and 1,700 hospitalizations in that city as a result of air pollution in 2007. The city has put a $2.2 billion annual price tag on the health costs connected to air pollution.
In London, Ontario, a group of citizens unsuccessfully pushed for a moratorium on construction of new drive-thrus. The Ontario Restaurant Hotel & Motel Association (ORHMA) collected 60,000 signatures in support of drive-thrus.
Michelle Saunders, director of government affairs for the ORHMA, told QSR that the group welcomes reasonable regulations for drive-thrus but opposes attempts to ban them. She questioned assumptions that drive-thrus are worse for the environment than stores without them. Ms. Saunders referenced a study conducted on behalf of Tim Hortons, which found that the amount of pollution created as consumers waited at drive-thrus was actually less than at restaurants without drive-thrus.
"If we didn't have the drive-thrus, we would end up with the same amount of customers, but they would be congested in the parking lot," Ms. Saunders said. "We would still have cars idling and shutting off and turning back on their engines, which creates more emissions. We'd have a greater [parking] lot size, more asphalt, more water runoff, more environmental consequences."
Joyce Reynolds, executive vice president of government affairs for the Canadian Restaurant and Foodservices Association (CRFA), told QSR, "When you look at idling, it contributes less than 0.2 percent of all greenhouse-gas emission in Canada, and drive-thrus are a very small percentage of that."
The city of San Luis Obispo in California placed a moratorium on drive-thrus back in the 1980s.
Doug Davidson, deputy director of the San Luis Obispo community development department, said, "There hasn't been a lot of opposition to it. We're kind of used to it, and some people are proud of it."
Discussion Questions: Will we see increased regulation of cars in drive-thrus? Will we begin to see towns and cities outlawing drive-thrus?