Lagunitas will be last to can

No, I was saying Lagunitas is being arrogant and stupid by openly taking such a strong stance on a subject matter that they do not have a complete understanding of. Sorry for the confusion.

My stance throughout was that the subject is far more complicated than they are presenting it. At some point of recycling aluminum amounts (0-100%), the environmental degradation caused by mining less and less Boxite would be outweighed by the environmental benefits of lighter material shipping. I also suggested that 100% recycled aluminum could probably be purchased by Lagunitas.

The full quote of what I said was:
"What I was trying to get at earlier is that, obviously demand will grow and 100% recycling is not realistic (you ended the quote right here, this is not the important part of what I was trying to say and really an aside not meant to be what I was trying to say earlier), but there gets to a point where if we recycle a certain amount of aluminum, the amount of environmental damage we do creating the remaining portion of virgin aluminum will be less than the amount of environmental damage we do from the extra energy required to transport heavier bottles."

It seems as though both of us feel we are misunderstanding each other. Also we both agree that 100% recycling rate is unfeasible.

All I was trying to get at in this discussion was that Lagunitas seems to be making some very strong claims in an arrogant and ignorant manner and anytime you do this, it dumbs down the discourse and solves very few problems.

 

I hope they don't object to all the aluminum in those big trucks and trailers, which keeps the gross weight down, so more product can be put in the trailers, that carry their brews all across the country. A silly thing to make a stand on, IMHO.

 

what's funny is that they're reacting to people who make big announcements about how environmentally friendly canning is (e.g. most craft companies making the switch to cans now).

so maybe you should put them back on your favorites lists? or perhaps you should focus on more interesting things.

 

Some companies want to tap into the outdoor crowd that goes camping but wants to remain responsible while drinking good craft beer and others do not. Lagunitas is making a business decision based on who they think their customer is. Clearly, if they thought they had enough customers that would buy cans they would make the switch regardless of their faux environmental concerns. They are saying nothing more than, "we don't think we can make enough money by canning to offset our menial and unsubstantial claims about the environment."

 

1. Most craft companies are not switching to cans
2. Most craft companies do not feel the need to announce they are not switching to cans
3. I am purely reacting to their "announcement" and not focusing on anthing
4. Sounds like someone might be a huge fan of Lagunitas and thus feels the need to defend them

 

I don't think most are, but there are more and more starting to make the switch. Lagunitas is trying to express their feelings that this may not be all it is cracked up to be. They are just giving a different perspective and allowing those who are thinking of making the change something to look into.

I think it is the opposite. Typically when a brewery is going to start canning there is a press release for it

That seems kind of silly. Isn't the message and the meaning the most important thing? It isn't like they are making stuff up, they are presenting the real cons to using cans. Yes there are benefits, but the questions is what are the cons, and when do the pros out way them?

I think it is more of defending the notion that not everything is as simple as it appears. Plus this issue highlights an important aspect into the group mentality/propaganda. Yes cans maybe be better under certain circumstances (recycling, transportation, etc), but are we at that point? Or do the negatives of mining and making Al cans still out weigh the benefits? Is there an alternative method that is environmentally better?
Like I mentioned earlier, common thought and support is that paper grocery bags are better for the environment than plastic, but this is completely false. That didn't stop Whole Foods from making a large announcement and advertising they "support the environment" by switching to only using paper bags.
Within a research paper (I think I have a copy on my home computer) it showed a nice graph that indicated at which point paper would be better than plastic based on recycling. The line was something high like: Paper = 50 + 2*plastic

 

yeah, reading comprehension not so good.

when a company starts canning, they often make an announcement about how eco-friendly / "green" it is. maybe you didn't know that, but your ignorance doesn't make my point less valid, so...

lagunitas is reacting to that recent trend. you may not agree with them, but you are failing to comprehend what they're saying if you don't understand that it's a reaction to people boasting about the greenness of cans.

i was pointing out that your aversion to self-serving announcements of "greenness" should cause you to share lagunitas's sentiment. i did not post this out of love for lagunitas.

now, let's see if you want to understand what i'm writing, or if your feelings are hurt, causing you to willfully misinterpret it and try to write some "scathing" butthurt argument reply. guess which one i expect.

 

Really? I had no idea. Here I have been living in a cave the past 20 years, so forgive me. The arrogance to think I wouldn't know that is astounding.

Of course I understand what they are reacting too, please see my above comment, it's not rocket science. I personally have not seen a bunch of breweries "boasting" about it, but perhaps this does happen.

Why should I share in their sentiment? Are they proven correct? Is it in fact "greener" to not can? If not, then they are doing the exact same thing the others are doing with this announcement and it's called hypocritical. As I said before, there are a whole bunch of breweries who do not can but they don't feel the need to announce that they will not be canning. This announcement is a marketing ploy to call attention to themselves, pure and simple. I wish you could understand that.

Lol, internet tough guying at it's best. I wish you could comprehend looking at an opposing view, guess not.

So if you respond to my post, this shows that you are in fact incapable of recognizing opposing views.

See, I can do that too.

 

wow, you really are butthurt.

read my original post: you should share their sentiment ("don't boast about how eco friendly canning is") because you criticized lagunitas directly for boasting about eco-friendliness, above and beyond the validity of their can claim.

if you spent half the time actually-reading and/or thinking that you do having emotional freakouts, none of this would have happened. i hope this lesson is a valuable one for you.

 

They thought so too...

http://www.beerpulse.com/2012/04/lagunitas-brewing-to-open-new-brewery-in-chicago/

 

Who cares?

 

Just as I expected. Some silly rambling about how you think others feel when you can't comprehend that others disagree with you. Typical arrogant Internet bully who keeps repeating the same thing in hopes others will believe his BS. Sad.

Read the thread carefully and you'll see I'm not alone in my opinion.

Have a nice weekend, and enjoy sipping on your Hop Stoopid..

 

Thanks for sharing these articles. I had previously done some research on the issue which lead me to the same conclusion.

If we drink local brews we can avoid much of the environmental impact of heavy glass bottles. If the industry would standardize bottle sizes and move to reusable bottles we would have the least environmental impact (as long as we drank local). Until that happens, choosing cans seems to do the least damage. We can all improve the process if we recycle those cans rather than trash them. From what I've been able to find out, recycled aluminum commands a high price. It helps keep them out of landfills, earns money for local government and cuts down on mining of bauxite. Now if they can only solve the liner issue.

 

I have also read about the massive amounts of electricity required to extrapolate aluminum. The entire process of creating high quality aluminum is anything but green...in fact, I would go as far as saying it's devastating to the environment.

This seems to be a nice read that covers pros/cons in an attempt to be unbiased...it documents progress through technology...yet, I still read that aluminum is not green...in fact I would classify it as dirty.

http://www1.eere.energy.gov/manufacturing/industries_technologies/aluminum/pdfs/al_theoretical.pdf

 

There are some mitigating factors though. For example, 31% of aluminum in the US comes from recycled aluminum, which cuts the effective energy costs by about 30%. Additionally, aluminum smelting is done in regions with disproportionately high amounts of hydroelectric energy (64% of the energy used in the North American smelting is hydro), which is renewable and carbon-free. Finally, wrt packaging, keep in mind that the mass of aluminum per can is very very small, which reduced the per-package impact relative to something like glass.

Mining will almost always be ugly. But from an energy standpoint, Al is not as bad as it initially seems.

 

so you do or do not understand that lagunitas's response was "criticizing big announcements of how green a company you are," while you were criticizing lagunitas for (you thought) making a big announcement of how green a company they are?

 

I fully understand that Lagunitas was making that announcement in direct response (criticizing is not the correct word) to breweries claiming (announcing) to be green by canning. Not my point. My point is they are being hypocritical in making the same announcement only championing the non use of cans. It's the same thing only different sides of the coin. If they truly felt that those announcing the greenness of cans is wrong, why would the do the exact same thing only championing the other side of the green can issue? That should be wrong too in their eyes, but they did it anyway....not to mention their reasoning and argument is subjective at best.

If you don't want to can, that's cool. Do what Dogfish Head just did in their latest blog. They answered their fans questions about why they didn't can by saying they just didn't believe it fit into their philosophy. That's all that needs to be said.