Climate Change Finally Impacts Important Industry 405
Socguy writes "According to a New Zealand scientist, Jim Salinger, the price of beer in and around Australia is going to be under increasing upward pressure as reductions in malting barley yields are experienced as a side effect of our ongoing climate shift.
"It will mean either there will be pubs without beer or the cost of beer will go up," Mr. Salinger told the Institute of Brewing and Distilling convention."
Trying to regulate every little thing is stupid (Score:3, Interesting)
We're going after barley today, and tomorrow it will be celery or lack of solar panels on buildings or computer that go to sleep too slowly etc etc etc.
A much more rational and simple approach would be: Tax all fossil fuels at the current cost of sinking the resulting carbon out of the air. (Actually, you just want to sink the fraction of existing output that needs to be removed in order to stabilize concentration of CO2 in the atmosphere but if I put that in the definition it would be too hard to untangle.)
Apply the funds to sinking CO2.
Then, all product use is carbon neutral. For all people, adjusting to climate change is simply a matter of buying whatever you want, so long as its cost is justified by its current price (which has been changed to account for the tax.) Given the new prices, all entrepreneurial activity redirects to account for higher fossil fuel costs and raises resources spent on minimizing this input.
This method is necessarily the least painful approach because and change in activities necessarily comes from those activities that have least benefit, as people currently judge them, and work up from there.
Furthermore, as the price of sinking goes down, the tax can go down.
Furthermore, this is robust against non-compliant countries, as their goods can be tarriffed to pay for whatever sinking they won't pay for. Or, if necessary, other countries can sink CO2 using general tax revenues.
Oops, I forgot, people would still be able to drive SUVs under this, so scratch it.
Going on two years (Score:4, Interesting)
However, there are many other crops from which alcohol can be derived. A sudden price increase in beer will send drinkers to the arms of other libations. This should, in principle, keep the price of beer from fluctuating too wildly. In another couple years when barley yields are back at their maximums, this will all have been a bad memory.
Comment removed (Score:3, Interesting)
Unlike fuel (Score:5, Interesting)
I remember reading a Newfoundland drug enforcement police officer's comment once to the effect that beer and spirits stores profits were up whenever the police managed to put a big dent in the illegal drug market.
Uh, not due to climate change though... (Score:5, Interesting)
Just once, why can't one of our poorly considered quick fixes work?
Re:Going on two years (Score:1, Interesting)
Spanish winemakers have already started moving their vineyards into the mountains because of climate change.
Maybe that's what the barley and hops growers need to do
Re:Uh, not due to climate change though... (Score:4, Interesting)
Flour prices have skyrocketed due to the corn (as you have mentioned) and the fact that farmers are then locked into subsidy land because farmers who grow other crops on corn acreage lose their subsidy for the current year and are fined the market value of the crop they chose to grow instead but are also threatened that they may be permanently ineligible to receive future subsidies (link [nytimes.com]).
So while we are getting more "inexpensive" gas and we are lessening our dependencies on foreign oil, we are creating an uncomfortable situation in our food stores and prices. I'd rather we deal with more mass transit and alternative fuel sources that don't fuck with our domestic food supplies.
Re:No peer-review necessary as long as you agree.. (Score:3, Interesting)
that's been going on a lot longer than that (Score:3, Interesting)
Re:home brewers (Score:2, Interesting)
Indeed, the hop shortage is really bad. The place where I get homebrew supplies won't sell the hops by themselves, only as part of a complete recipe, to prevent people from hoarding.
If the barley problem gets worse, I can only imagine that it could get harder for homebrew shops to stay in business, which would be a shame.
Re:Going on two years (Score:4, Interesting)
Source? Almost all gasoline is actaully 10% ethanol these days. Since gasoline accounts for 60% of oil consumption [doe.gov], wouldn't it stand to reason that ethanol replaces about 6% of our oil consumption at this point?
Finally, after processing corn for Ethanol, a great deal of high-protien livestock feed remains. The sugars from the corn get converted to ethanol, and the "everything else" is still used as livestock feed.
It's really a lot more complicated than you make it sound. Corn-based Ethanol will not solve our transportation energy needs, but it isn't all bad.
Re:home brewers (Score:4, Interesting)
Besides, prices don't seem that high. A little high, sure, but not overwhelming:
http://www.northernbrewer.com/hop-pellets.html [northernbrewer.com]
Re:home brewers (Score:4, Interesting)
Re:home brewers (Score:2, Interesting)
Re:home brewers (Score:3, Interesting)
You seem to be ignoring what happens down on the farm. Corn is ideal because we already had the infrastructure in place to integrate corn-based ethanol plants into the supply chain with virtually no cost (money or energy).
Turning another crop, such as switchgrass, into a commodity is not an easy process and would waste a lot of energy in the process. Perhaps more energy than what would be gained from it having more energy potential.
Also, the new ethanol plants already support the crops you speak of, so I'm not sure we've put everything into one. There just isn't a realistic alternative to corn in the plant-based fuel sector, and there won't be for a while.
Re:Going on two years (Score:5, Interesting)
Malting barley has stricter requirements that that used for feed, there are max protein levels and germination percentage used along with the normal grain quality indexes (hectolitre weight, screening % etc.)
The interesting thing as regards to beer (larger, ale and stout) is that the price of the malting barley has very little impact on the price paid for a pint.
I don't have a quick reference but in Ireland the cost of malting barley works out at around 1-2 cent per pint, out of an average price of around €4.00 or so (pub price).
The problem is that barley as animal feed is easily subsisted for by other feeds such as wheat, soya, maize etc. This means that the price of barley moves in relation to the prices of these other grains. It is also important to note these these grains along with rice are the base constituents of most alcohol produced.
As regard to New Zealand, one of its biggest exports are milk products. As NZ sells on the world market the recent increase in milk and milk product prices is pushing up demand for animal feeds such as barley. This is because one of the ways of getting higher output from dairy cows in increasing the levels of concentrates (such as barley wheat etc.) feed.
So even with higher yields the price of barley may or may not decrease the price of barley depending on the market prices of the other grains.
Re:Climate change, guess old buzzword wasn't worki (Score:3, Interesting)
I, for one... (Score:2, Interesting)
Re:Beer lovers get the shaft either way (Score:2, Interesting)
Re:Trying to regulate every little thing is stupid (Score:3, Interesting)
And how do they do that? REGULATION.
So banning it is better than taxing it? What kind of bizarro-world do you live in where banning a previously legal activity because it is environmentally harmful is better than taxing that activity to compensate for the damage caused, i.e. rendering it less competitive than activities that do not damage the environment?
And people are definitely investigating carbon sequestration techniques, so the whole "not even possible given the engineering capacity we humans have" is not correct. I think they'd work harder if, e.g. coal suddenly cost 10x as much due to environmental damage costs. Of course the carbon-emitting activities might themselves be reduced, i.e. the need to sequestrate would be reduced, if carbon was taxed.
To me it is *you* who don't seem to understand the problem. You handwave the ability of companies to somehow keep doing whatever they're doing that is environmentally damaging once it is more expensive (potentially much more expensive) once taxes are levied. You additionally handwave pollution and environmental issues as a classic textbook example of market failures without explaining why that is the case (perhaps I have the wrong economics textbooks). I see it as an issue that has been sidelined only because the costs weren't obvious (carbon dioxide bad?) or due to regulatory capture. Neither is a failure of markets, but a failure to even apply them. This is changing as the true costs become apparent: Europe has started its cap-and-trade market and I think California and/or some other states are interested in doing the same here. In fact, I read recently that some big companies are petitioning for a federal system (in the United States) so that there is at least a uniform system rather than several state-level systems.
One thing that could short-circuit these efforts is governmental cowardice to push something that would be unpopular: I assume that adding environmental costs to gas/oil consumption would substantially raise its price. Just as cowardice has led to refusal to tackle other hard problems like the future of social welfare systems.
Thus I state that you have failed to make your case that the grandparent poster is a "real fundamentalist" or a "complete idiot". The Market system is not magical. You simply assign costs to scarce or undesirable behaviors/objects and let the efficiency drive of the average person (read, greed) regulate what happens. The failures so far have been to assign costs to adverse consequences that were dilute or fuzzy. Like there should probably be a cost assigned based on the undesirability of propping up shitheads in the Middle East, but I don't know how you'd do that (divide the cost of the Iraq War by the oil output we receive from there?).
I think taxing carbon outright is the correct solution. I used to really like the cap-and-trade scheme