Heat and Drought Could Threaten World Beer Supply

Discussion in 'Beer News & Releases' started by Black_Rider, Oct 15, 2018.

  1. Black_Rider

    Black_Rider Zealot (511) Mar 26, 2013 California

    5thOhio, MikeP64, puck1225 and 2 others like this.
  2. EMH73

    EMH73 Poo-Bah (1,585) Sep 16, 2015 New York
    Premium Trader

    In 80 years I can can safely say that I will no longer be drinking beer or anything for that matter. I shall overcompensate starting now.
  3. Amendm

    Amendm Disciple (395) Jun 7, 2018 Rhode Island

    Did you hear this one...a climate scientist, a crop modeler and an economist walk into a bar....
  4. Ten_SeventySix_Brewhouse

    Ten_SeventySix_Brewhouse Initiate (132) Jul 20, 2016 Arizona

    "...breed new strains of barley..." Seems like this is the solution. That, and moving colder weather crops further north (or south, in the Southern Hemisphere. The planet's climate is going to change, with or without us. I'm not sure that "climate change mitigation is the only way," or even a realistic goal, honestly. Adaptation has always been one of humankind's strong suits.

    It certainly is trivial to talk about beer in this context. It's ridiculous to think that this may be the thing that finally gets the developed world to start reducing their carbon emissions. :joy:
  5. Harrison8

    Harrison8 Poo-Bah (2,974) Dec 6, 2015 Missouri
    Premium Trader

    Interesting read. One quote that stuck out:

    That 15 to 20 percent would hurt all, but I'm curious where that would be felt the most. Would small local breweries start closing, unable to afford the increased barley prices? Would it stop or slow start-ups unable to afford costly barley? Would large corporations buy up farms to secure product, while reducing competition?

    A beer shortage due to climate change would also have interesting effects on companies that can afford to R&D crop mutations, i.e. AB-INBev.

    It will be interesting to see how, or even if, AB's ability to develop crops will help their sales in the future, especially if it means they can develop more resilient barley crops. We've already seen AB buy hop farms, causing a shortage of hops for independent craft breweries.

    Interesting stuff, with hurtful, but not harmful, reactions. Personally, I'd like to keep my coffee and beer both in my glass and in the affordable range.
    EMH73 and Amendm like this.
  6. TriggerFingers

    TriggerFingers Disciple (324) Apr 29, 2012 California

    Fortunately, I'm not worried. I'm a skilled fermentationist. I'll still be drinking a tasty beverage during the zombie apocalypse.

    You'd be surprised what you can make hooch out of.

    Cheers everyone!
  7. nc41

    nc41 Poo-Bah (1,660) Sep 25, 2008 North Carolina

    Well there will always be fizzy yellow beer. It needs so little.
    HorseheadsHophead and Amendm like this.
  8. LarryV

    LarryV Meyvn (1,070) Jun 13, 2001 Massachusetts

    Amendm, IPAExpert69 and woemad like this.
  9. woemad

    woemad Poo-Bah (2,854) Jun 8, 2003 Washington

    LarryV likes this.
  10. LarryV

    LarryV Meyvn (1,070) Jun 13, 2001 Massachusetts

    With the ability to genetically engineer crops I would expect that they will come up with some sort of drought resistant barley in the future.
  11. MNAle

    MNAle Meyvn (1,058) Sep 6, 2011 Minnesota

    If climate "scientists" did not have a 20 year track record of cooked numbers, politically edited "studies", shaming and silencing any and all dissenting views from scientists, attempts to profiteer by global warming believers/politicians, misusing and misapplying computer modeling tools, etc., etc., I might be inclined to take this more seriously.

    These people apparently never read the story "Peter and the Wolf."
  12. Junior

    Junior Disciple (343) May 23, 2015 Michigan

    So worst case scenario the price of beer will increase buy just over 3X by 2099.

    I was just watching a show about water conservation. The production of beer does use a lot of water. It may have more to do with the number of people on the planet that are using water than climate change. I am confident that there are enough smart people out there thaw will figure this out before it becomes an issue.
    LarryV likes this.

    THANAT0PSIS Crusader (768) Aug 3, 2010 Wisconsin

    Whether or not it is as bad as a lot of articles and op-eds portray it, the fact is that humans have and are contributing to climate change, which will eventually have drastic effects. The sooner we take action, the safer we will be. I also think that clean energy and reducing our carbon footprint is a net good no matter what.
    spoony, bret717, nodder and 14 others like this.
  14. VoodooBear

    VoodooBear Disciple (341) Aug 25, 2012 Puerto Rico

    Does this mean we get more rye and wheat beers then? :rofl:
    5thOhio likes this.
  15. Lahey

    Lahey Disciple (386) Nov 12, 2016 Michigan

    I think beer would be the least of our problems in our dystopian future.
  16. cavedave

    cavedave Poo-Bah (2,468) Mar 12, 2009 New York

    Useful to note that many people in the run up to, and during, the Dust Bowl denied it existed, or was caused by man, and congress also denied and refused to act. That is, until a dust storm hit Washington DC. If that degree of denial seems impossible to believe, well, you can see it happening in real time now regarding fossil fuels.

    Hopefully the effects won't be too bad for beer. But at this point it seems likely there will be no success at curing the problem by a leadership and constituency so adept and complicit in its denial.
  17. drtth

    drtth Poo-Bah (3,688) Nov 25, 2007 Pennsylvania

    You say this as if all who do the research in various relevant areas were/are incompetent and guilty of self delusion and/or deliberate deceit for personal gain.

    That is somewhat like blaming all engineers for failures such as the Titanic, the Tacoma Narrows Bridge and/or the Hyatt Regency Walkway collapse of 81. Clearly all engineers and their managers cut corners to increase the size of their commissions and profits, fail to understand complexity, misapply inadequate mathematics and don’t bother to insure that those who read their work don’t take any shortcuts.

    As you well know the real world is not that simple.
    bret717, MrJellybean, PJ_ and 7 others like this.
  18. cavedave

    cavedave Poo-Bah (2,468) Mar 12, 2009 New York

    True, true, but what's better than a beer on a really hot day?
  19. hopfenunmaltz

    hopfenunmaltz Meyvn (1,391) Jun 8, 2005 Michigan

    Which ones did they buy? Not aware of any in the USt, the South African hops were part of the purchase of SAB.
  20. MNAle

    MNAle Meyvn (1,058) Sep 6, 2011 Minnesota

    I say that as if the public information provided for the last 20 years was exaggerated on purpose for political purposes while other science was actively suppressed, again for political purposes, while some of the most vocal public spokespersons were putting in place business deals to profiteer from the proposed laws and regulations.

    I say that because I know a bit about the computer modeling programs being used in the 90's and know that they were not developed nor designed for the long term forecasting they were being used for, as is demonstrably clear now from how much in error they were.

    I say that since such dishonest and disreputable actions by "scientists", rather than push the public to support treaties, laws, and regulations, backfired and led directly to the general skepticism toward the whole issue today.

    If you want people to believe your science, don't cook the numbers, silence those who disagree while claiming it is "settled science", or engage in back-room deals. When such is obviously the history of the global warming/climate change "science", how can anyone take anything presented on the subject at face value?

    If we are fiddling while the earth burns, those behind the fraudulent parts of this whole thing have only themselves to blame. I say this as if that.
    5thOhio likes this.
  21. drtth

    drtth Poo-Bah (3,688) Nov 25, 2007 Pennsylvania

    In other words, we can't trust anything we are told by any scientists and engineers. The world is all black and white.
  22. Harrison8

    Harrison8 Poo-Bah (2,974) Dec 6, 2015 Missouri
    Premium Trader

    Included, but still purchased, and now used just for AB's production.
  23. drtth

    drtth Poo-Bah (3,688) Nov 25, 2007 Pennsylvania

    Dig a bit deeper and you'll find some interesting things.

    Then you might want to doubt the account of a biased source (Crum) about what happened in the South African hops situation. Especially when there are much more credible South African accounts of what the history of hop imports and exports has been in South Africa.

    See this thread

    Harrison8 likes this.
  24. Ahonky

    Ahonky Initiate (133) Feb 13, 2018 New York

    We have too much beer in the USA right now. We are unable to drink it faster than it takes to becomes undrinkable (or our perception of what is undrinkable).
    5thOhio, pjeagles and Lahey like this.
  25. Ranbot

    Ranbot Zealot (547) Nov 27, 2006 Pennsylvania

    This "study" was obviously more of a fun side project between friends with slightly different backgrounds who met a bar at a conference. This is not serious science, even if they did apply some serious concepts here and there. It's sort of like if physicist, mechanic, astronomer, and rocket scientist met at a Star Trek convention and semi-seriously discussed how the Enterprise's engines work. It's fun to apply your real world knowledge to a hypothetical situation and I'll bet we have all done it somewhere, probably even on these forums related to beer, but that doesn't mean it should be printed in the NY Times.

    The real story here is scientists need to be careful about what they put out there for the media, because the media can't be trusted not run off to the presses with any silly thing they think will get clicks, shares, and/or sell [old-fashioned] newspapers. Dumb stuff like this is just a distraction from the very real issues.
  26. eppCOS

    eppCOS Crusader (749) Jun 27, 2015 Colorado

    For those of us who study climate, soil, vegetation changes over time, it kinda breaks my heart to see this lingering skepticism towards our collective work. I have zero political or economic interests in this. I sincerely WISH that there was no anthropogenic warming. I really HOPED that the first IPCC report was wrong when I read it in high school.
    Like any trained scientist, I was SKEPTICAL of those early studies. Once you include instrumental and proxy records for climate, however, and pay attention to the Milankovitch cycles, there's only "us" in the current climate warming fingerprint. Ice cores (isotopes), tree rings, lake varves, fossil pollen, geochronology, archival climate records, and yes even recorded instrumental data...they all point to the same thing.
    Also, there was no conspiracy - these are decent, honest people, and the fact that a lot of people buy into the Koch and oil-funded conspiracy theories that smeared their good names (read "Merchants of Doubt" by Oreskes) is mind-boggling. People are people, of course, and they share opinions about the charlatans and bullshit artists who get paraded out at anti-science conferences...but that's basic human behavior. It's not really built into the scientific method.
    And it's just disrespectful to those folks who spend their life learning this science, or this "craft/trade." For example: I don't question the plumber or electrician that he's part of an international conspiracy to give me bad news, all the time, about my pipes and wiring. To give another analogy or example about this...
    We spend our lives looking at data, real data, and while interpretation is difficult - there is no climate conspiracy. And again - I would have zero political agenda to do this kind of work. I wish it weren't true, in other words.
    Carry on... while I go get some more coffee...or maybe even coffee with beer.
    spoony, bret717, PJ_ and 19 others like this.
  27. IPAExpert69

    IPAExpert69 Initiate (170) Aug 2, 2017 New Jersey

    9/10 global climate scientists should be taken way more seriously than 9/10 dentists recommending a toothbrush. Deniers are a small breed using far greater data manipulation (studies funded by big oil too), funny how the rest of the world tends to take this issue seriously, yet we do not.
    MrJellybean, PJ_, nodder and 11 others like this.
  28. AZBeerDude72

    AZBeerDude72 Meyvn (1,429) Jun 10, 2016 Arizona
    Premium Trader

  29. eppCOS

    eppCOS Crusader (749) Jun 27, 2015 Colorado

    I'll see your popcorn, @AZBeerDude72 , and raise you a beer. :wink: :beers:
    I gotta go work, and teach some colluding science this morning... :nerd:
    spoony, HopsAreDaMan, Lahey and 4 others like this.
  30. IPAExpert69

    IPAExpert69 Initiate (170) Aug 2, 2017 New Jersey

    You see this is what real science is, people seem to act like scientist's sole goal is to hypothesize the worst and try their damnest to get to the mark. That could not be simply further from the truth, go back in history (my strong suit) and you will see the same smears. Whether it was Galileo or Nicholas Copernicus, "scary" scientific theorems were almost universally panned. Well I may ask, who looks silly now?
    nodder and Lahey like this.
  31. MNAle

    MNAle Meyvn (1,058) Sep 6, 2011 Minnesota

    Please point out where I said that.
  32. MNAle

    MNAle Meyvn (1,058) Sep 6, 2011 Minnesota

    I am not a denier. I am, however, a hardened skeptic.

    My position is: quit cooking the numbers, misusing computer models, and politically editing the "scientific" studies, and start allowing open scientific discussion, including data that may contradict, and stop using phrases like "majority of scientists" and "settled science" since any true scientist will tell you that science is not a majority vote, and the majority is frequently wrong, and that there is no such thing as "settled science" in any new area of study.
    Amendm and dcotom like this.
  33. IPAExpert69

    IPAExpert69 Initiate (170) Aug 2, 2017 New Jersey

    Putting scientists in air quotes basically screamed that exact sentiment tbh. I see where he's coming from.
  34. MNAle

    MNAle Meyvn (1,058) Sep 6, 2011 Minnesota

    Your examples actually serve the opposite view as well. Galileo was fighting against "settled science".
    Amendm likes this.
  35. MNAle

    MNAle Meyvn (1,058) Sep 6, 2011 Minnesota

    Those that publish with cooked numbers and politically edited reports are "scientists".
    Amendm likes this.
  36. drtth

    drtth Poo-Bah (3,688) Nov 25, 2007 Pennsylvania

    Sure, you said:

    I replied:

    You then replied by simply reiterating your earlier claims in much greater detail. (Quote omitted.)

    So I concluded, given your blanket condemnation, which doesn't recognize there has been legitimate work, etc., etc., that your view of science and engineering is that it is not credible because there have demonstrably been a few bad apples in all areas of science and engineering.
  37. IPAExpert69

    IPAExpert69 Initiate (170) Aug 2, 2017 New Jersey

    Actually they were going up against religious fanatics and nutjobs, and hmmmm remind me again who uses religion to deny science these days? Just calling books cooked is ridiculous, it's a slap in the face to the entire scientific community.
    MrJellybean, nodder, Amendm and 3 others like this.
  38. MNAle

    MNAle Meyvn (1,058) Sep 6, 2011 Minnesota

    @drtth and @IPAExpert69, I think you guys need to read more. Just about all of the public information put out during the 90's when this was ramping up has proven to be an exaggeration (at best), several of the UN studies were politically edited from the actual science, and several of the "studies" were based on cooked numbers, and Al Gore (among many others) was working behind the scenes to get rich off of the regulations.

    Using cooked books should be a slap in the face to the entire scientific community. They should be the ones screaming the loudest about this. Why aren't they?

    I'm of the "fool me once" camp on this.

    For me, this issue needs a period of unfettered transparency. I have yet to see it. It has been (and continues to be) dominated by political opportunists from across the political spectrum.
    Amendm likes this.
  39. drtth

    drtth Poo-Bah (3,688) Nov 25, 2007 Pennsylvania

    Well, a good part of the answer here is that some of those scientists have been, but doing so in a customary research oriented way that doesn't get the attention of either the popularizers or the public, most of whom don't have enough technical background to understand what it means when one points out, say, that a particular computer/mathematical model was oversimplified or inadequate to the job. E.g., the mathematical models used in designing the Tacoma Narrows Bridge ignored a major but well understood phenomenon.
    IPAExpert69 and cavedave like this.
  40. ManBearPat

    ManBearPat Devotee (428) Dec 2, 2014 Colorado

    @MNAle is obviously the type of “person” that would rather his children not have clean air to breathe or water to drink (or brew with) then go against the tribalist BS propagated by big oil and the right (wrong).

    Its a sad state of affairs that so many idiots have made basic, essential things like clean air and water a political issue.

    FWIW- I don’t have children and don’t plan on it, but I’m scared AF for them with all our ‘leaders’ arguing over what should really be a basic human right.
    spoony, nodder, grilledsquid and 2 others like this.