24 Breweries Join Call to Action on Climate Change

because they support reducing the effects of climate change? that's a weird stance.

 

Working towards a better environment, i.e., cutting pollution and reducing consumption is always a great idea regardless of political affiliation or cause celeb, but it has to be approached responsibly. If these 24 breweries can lead the way to innovation that helps smaller breweries (that don't have the capital to innovate) benchmark the efforts, than everyone wins. One of the underlying causes of concern with the phrase "climate change" (much like global warming) is the fear that it's a free cash money grab by the government through regulatory fees and taxes that don't go towards helping anything other than repaying lobbyists and contributors. Fact is, if MORE companies took it upon themselves to be better stewards of the environment, we could reduce the need for government intervention at all.

Now then, quit with all the politi-bickering and have a beer. Just about that time, eh?

 

I didn't make any political statement or stance. You literally didn't answer my question.

Why won't you drink from those breweries?

...and to be clear, you are calling Fort George, The Alchemist, Odell, Deschuttes, Fremont, Chukanut, Georgetown, Allagash, etc... junk breweries?

 

The ad is fairly transparent about its double intentions of good economics and good corporate citizenship... so I think that is downright honest there. I also think it's a win-win campaign and kudos to them for bringing it to the spotlight.

 

It probably more accurate to refer to it as climate destabilization than climate change. These breweries are to be applauded for doing something. I am encouraged by the number of craft brewers who are pursuing sustainable practices and I think as a whole they do it more than most other industries. I think some of it has to do with the people who drink craft beer but many of these brewers actually care and act - which sets them apart from the giants who focus on the bottom line.

 

You're full of shit.

There I said it.

 

If these breweries wanted to fight "climate change" then don't exist....

Less packaging
Less Trucks going out (Fuel)
Less carbon footprint from building operations
so on and so on...

This is just silly...its a game you can never win...

 

Hahaha, "that stuff"?? Climate change? It's not a matter of beliefs, broseph, it's science.

And yea, the Alchemist, Allagash, Deschutes, New Belgium, O'Dell... they're all junk, you're right. Quite the beer advocate you are.

 

You don't think good judgment and critical thinking are necessary to make good beer?

 

It totally is.

I (and thousands of others) have had good beer from many of these breweries - including the Number 1 rated beer on this site. So I see three possibilities:

1. Your logic is wrong, and breweries who make pacts to "Go Green" do have critical thinking skills, and use those skills to make good beer.
2. Your logic is wrong, and critical thinking skills about "going green" has no correlation with the critical thinking skills it takes to make beer.
3. Your logic is right, and tens of thousands of people's palate's are wrong - possibly coated by the giant liberal media machine so we can't taste the horrible beer from these breweries.

...All of these seem equally likely to me...

 

Not at all. Those are political issues before state legislatures (and congress) This is about how brewers manufacture and transport their beer, and about environmental impacts that will impact the sourcing of ingredients - in a few cases, it will impact the physical survival of breweries located in low lying places.

 

It is quite possible to fight climate change without abolishing consumer goods. Possibly without lowering our standard of living at all.

Actually much of the GOP used to accept global warming science. John McCain (R) supported carbon pricing, alongside Joe Lieberman (I). It is only in the last 6 years that it has become so partisan. There are hints that it will become less partisan again.

 

You gave me two examples and one is an independent and both of these guys are really RINOS and only are conservative when it comes to foreign conflicts...

Anyway...to keep this about beer....Does anybody have anything to say about the 2015 KBS?

 

Yeah,

Not as good as Fremont KDS or BBOMB variants.

 

Since there is a global conspiracy that involves thousands of govt officials from around the world, thousands of scientists, peer review committees at journals, at every media outlet except for a few (and those mostly owned by Rupert Murdoch) , a conspiracy on the part of the US govt that continued even during the Bush Admin, that was so subtle that most MSM avoided discussing climate change extensively until recently, and that same MSM made a point of giving equal time to "cliimate deniers", then it is not at all far fetched that this same conspiracy has conspired to distort beer reviews.

 

Haha, fair enough

 

John McCain is conservative on a range of domestic issues. And RINO is a term a portion of the GOP has used to try to squash debate within the GOP. In this case it is used to make the proposition "each party has their own science" unfalsfiable.

 

I CANT TRUST ANYTHING ANYMORE!

excuse me while a stick my head in the sand and wait for my life to end. IS THE SAND EVEN REAL? AM I EVEN REAL?

* Furiously quotes Descartes over and over and over again while shaking*

 

Key to climate change denialism is the ability of denialists to control the line between what is or is not political. It's very similar to how tobacco companies managed to mislead the public for decades--they couldn't outright lie, but they could manufacture public doubt regarding things that were scientifically quite clear. And they did this by casting science as politically motivated.

Of course, their own involvement was in no way political. No sir. They were just honest truth-seekers. It's those dastardly scientists--those guys who adhere to strict methods of observation and whose work goes through peer review--they're the ones who can't be trusted!

Yes, this is abetted by widespread ignorance regarding how science actually works. And, yes, there are some truly evil bastards out there who don't care about anything other than their immediate, material interests (lots of Wall Street guys are starting to write op eds that say, basically, "yeah, climate change is real and it's going to catastrophic, but we don't care enough to do anything about it.") But there are deeper, less malignant cultural issues that make this issue unsolvable. Dealing with climate change in effectively will require lifestyle changes that few of us are prepared to make. Plus, there's just general guilt. I believe climate change is happening, which means I have to be upfront with myself that I'm contributing to it and will continue contributing to it until I die. Is that anymore immoral that stubborn ignorance? Not really. Just differently awful.

 

I'm sorry, but this is ridiculous. Academia is a goddamn war zone (Woodrow Wilson once remarked that after being president of Princeton, being the US president would be no problem) and the idea that data across institutions and countries is being systematically manipulated into pushing a single political agenda ignores how massively difficult such a coordination would be, and frankly sounds paranoid. So when there's really widespread agreement on an issue, you should probably take note, unless you want to hang out with Peter Duesberg who didn't "believe" either and was (rightly) shunned.