Post
When I was at your age… Pluto was a planet and .... we were drinking beer
Mmmmm.............
Corona. Internet connection. Stake for diner. My balcony with a sunset view.
Browsing until bread heats in the oven ....
Life is treating me nicely ....
Some 'green article'. Ok, why not....
OK, I am a girl and I have "girlish attacks" from time to time, baby seals one of them... You have to love them - so fluffy, white, cute... I do not feel joy of life when thinking of losing baby seals in this world but I do felt PAIN by just a quick scan on that article. A thought of losing TUBORG/CORONA/KRIEK strikes my heart as an arrow.
Article title: Beer might disappear because of climate change(1)
According to articles a bottle of "my" Corona might cost as much as Don Perignion in future. How is that possible?
In short...
Since prehistoric times, primitive populations found that beer could provide much-needed B vitamins and calories (yes and tummy). But in order to produce beer you need a plant called barley crop. And if we are going to trust Germans (and maybe we should after all they have Oktober fest) and their Reinheitsgebot (Purity Law) from 1516, brewers must use only hops, barley, water, and yeast in their beers in order to guarantee that they are "good and healthy." This means if you want to drink good beer do not substitute barley with rice or corn.(2)
But than unfortunately barley is very sensitive to temperature changes and even moderate changes of temperature decrease its quality and quantity. So, if there are droughts during summer and than heavy rains the amount of high quality barley is reduced.
Details of the barley crops.
Result:
1. German case: You drink beer which is much more expensive. To be precise 5.5 percent price increase for a 1 L mug on last year October fest. How much is that? 10.80 euros bite (per 1l glass) …
OR
2. Czech Republic case: a 7–10% decline in yields is expected, depending of the region. Less tasty Alpha acid in the barley (up to 13–32%). Less high quality barley in the beer. Less good beer on your table. (3)
And as climate change is global it affects global barley yields. Already in 2008 a researcher from the National Institute of Water and Atmospheric Research in New Zealand (by the way do u know for any famous NZ beer???) said at a conference of beer industry representatives that rising temperatures may threaten beer production. The researcher, Jim Salinger, said it malting barley was identified as being particularly vulnerable to rising temperatures.(4)
I am completely sure that environmentalist should push this info harder than the other effects of climate change. It should hit a broader population than baby seals...
Hey at least one thing is sure - Irish will not say NO to this proposal...
p.s Situation is not beter for 'wine lovers' too so if you are interested klick here
Comments
It’s ok, here’s one attack that won’t make light of your sex.
There is no physical mechanism linking anthropogenic carbon dioxide emissions to rises in global mean average temperature observed during the 20th century.
Furthermore:
- A tax on CO2 will not reduce emissions, period.
- Only massive culling of the population will reduce emissions by 80% by 2050.
- Man isn’t even responsible for more than 1% of the CO2 that is in the atmosphere.
- The only feasible method of reversing what we deem to be undesirable warming of the atmosphere is by manipulating the planet’s albedo. The effect would be immediate, highly controllable and infinitely more achievable and human than the worldwide slaughter of billions.
Oh look…A sceptic who’s talking against a 95% of scientific consensus…But he knows better…
Well as you do not give a source for any of your comments Mike, i will just comment back…All the facts you name are horribly wrong. Cheers.
@Lovorka: Very nice (and scarry, as I am German) article. Maybe Beer is the key to make the public be concerned about global warming. I love that drink.
Hey natural climate denier, how many sources do you want?
10?
100?
1000?
10000?
Oh, and please be specific on what points you want me to source. In exchange, perhaps you can provide some scientific sources explaining the physical mechanism linking anthropogenic carbon dioxide emissions to observed rises in global mean average surface temperature during the 20th century.
By the way, the 31,000 scientists who signed the Oregon Petition, are they part of the consensus too?
Ah, there we have a better approach. Thank you for your enthusiasm. Oregon petition? That was in 1999 until 2001, righ? Long ago. And doubius (duble names etc…) Anyway…
...Here we go. You call me “naural climate denier”? No I am not a denier. I do not know it for sure. And so don’t you. No scientist in the world “knows for sure”. I am convinced you could give me even 100.000 sources that deny man made global warming. But at the same time there is a huge scientific consesus that warns us about a potential man made global warming.
And I do not want to wake up some years later finding out that we actually caused it but we doubted it for so long it was too late in the end. And believe me. You do not want that either (unless you have a very stubborn mind).
And especially one point I want to oppose…Not only killing of the population helps. It is rather about adapting our lifestyle. Sure it depends on us and it’s a difficult path. I’d rather try than sit in front front of the snake until it bites.
You are dodging the question. I am asking you, are those 31000 scientists a part of the “consensus” in your mind? In any poll that size of course there will be people with the same name. The IPCC claims to have 2500 scientists (actual number is 5, but let’s ignore that). Where is this 95% consensus?
By “natural climate denier”, I am implying that you deny natural climate variability and attribute the 20th century’s observed rises in global mean average temperature mostly/entirely to man. This may also imply a belief that the climate prior to the industrial revolution was somehow “balanced” or “ideal” and without change.
If you are truly concerned that the planet is becoming undesirably warm for whatever reason, then you must accept the only feasible choice is to alter the planet’s albedo, even if only temporarily until we can make the “transition”.
Th!nk about it. What do you think the odds are of changing the behaviour of 6.8 billion people to the extent that they voluntarily reduce their energy consumption by 80%, in just 40 years? The industrial revolution has taken 150 years. What are the odds of replacing all of our energy infrastructure with “renewables” in just 40 years? How will this be funded? Where will we get all the raw materials? How much CO2 will be emitted just to build it all? It certainly won’t break even before 2050, let alone result in a net CO2 emissions reduction of 80%.
By asking for 80% emissions reductions by 2050 with your methods, you are asking for the impossible. Behaviour changes alone will not reduce emissions more than 20-30%, and that task alone is already arduous. The only practical way to achieve this in such a short period of time is for there to be less people, or to categorically deny them the energy needed to live through absolute worldwide tyranny.
I am being VERY generous here by even entertaining the preposterity of anthropogenic global warming. So I hope you will give a serious answer.
Thank you for your answer. As I think this issue is not in direct relation with the topic of the post I would prefer to continue this discussion on a platform like facebook. Find me there by searching for my name. I am eager to find out about your albedo theory.
David, Mike, what a healthy discussion, keep it here in the Th!nk2, don’t take it away.
Lavorka, good post, although I do not drink beer
GOOD POST! Congrats!
Corona was the beer of our President Jacques Chirac!