Slashdot Mirror
Climate Change Will Cause Beer Shortages and Price Hikes, Study Says (vice.com)
A new study from Nature Plants has identified the one climate-related issue that can unite people from myriad political backgrounds -- beer. From a report: Led by Wei Xie, an agricultural scientist at Peking University, the paper finds that regions that grow barley, the primary crop used to brew beer, are projected to experience severe droughts and heat waves due to anthropogenic climate change. According to five climate models that used different projected temperature increases for the coming century, extreme weather events could reduce barley yields by 3 to 17 percent. Barley harvests are mostly sold as livestock fodder, so beer availability could be further hindered by the likely prioritization of grain yields to feed cattle and other farm animals, rather than for brewing beer.
The net result will be a decline in affordable access to beer, which is the most commonly imbibed alcoholic beverage in the world. Within a few decades, this luxury may be out of reach for hundreds of millions of people, including those in affluent nations where breweries are a major industry. Price spikes are estimated to range from $4 to over $20 for a standard six-pack in nations like the US, Ireland, Denmark, and Poland.
The net result will be a decline in affordable access to beer, which is the most commonly imbibed alcoholic beverage in the world. Within a few decades, this luxury may be out of reach for hundreds of millions of people, including those in affluent nations where breweries are a major industry. Price spikes are estimated to range from $4 to over $20 for a standard six-pack in nations like the US, Ireland, Denmark, and Poland.
Yes, that's the thing I was worried about with climate change.
A 3-17% yield decrease leads to a 80-350% increase in price? Call me skeptical, but this seems a bit out of band.
My ignorance is a perfect shield against your logic.
That is a dirty tactic to get us onboard with doing something about it!
now you are talking... except that decision makers don't not care if price of their single malt scotch tripples.
The types of Barley you use for beer making is completely different than animal feed. Animal feed is 6-row barley (ie on the grain head, there are six rows of seeds) while the barley used for beer is 2 row. (ie two rows of seed). This is mostly because 6 row has far more flavour involved chemicals in it, whereas 2 row is a much cleaner slate, suitable for things other than dark ales.
...si hoc legere nimium eruditionis habes...
Hope he got a raise with his new job
Eco-Alarmism Will Cause Beer Shortages and Price Hikes, Experience Says
I doubt a spike in beer prices will get peoples attention.
Also to note, Climate change in term of agriculture will in general shift production locations (further north in the norther hemisphere) So total output will in general remain constant.
Also there can be a lot of other factors that can affect the price of beer, other then just climate change. Factors such changes in demand (people may be wanting less beer, or substitute it with something else (Hard Cider is my preference). Or just other countries not wanting to import American products will lower the cost.
If something is so important that you feel the need to post it on the internet... It probably isn't that important.
A shortage of chocolate, coffee and wine will provoke riots in the streets. Stock up while you can!
Fill your basement with 1000000 cases of beer now.
Worst-case scenario: you sell at huge profit when the disaster strikes.
Best-case: no need to leave the house for the rest of your life.
https://app.box.com/WitthoftResume Code: https://github.com/cellocgw
This is off topic, but I am wondering why the university still identifies as Peking University, as opposed to Beijing University? It it just because they feel they've already established their brand name, like (on topic) Tsingtao Beer?
Barley harvests are mostly sold as livestock fodder, so beer availability could be further hindered by the likely prioritization of grain yields to feed cattle and other farm animals, rather than for brewing beer.
Another good reason to stop eating meat.
Escher was the first MC and Giger invented the HR department.
You can easily see this is true with a quick trip to any jungle, which is both hotter and wetter than most other place on Earth, yet also has the greatest abundance of vegetation...
I guess you mean "rainforest".
A rainforest, or simpler jungle is sustained by evaporating water out of its own area, and raining it down again on its own area. It is kinda a closed circle.
Deserts work the exact same way. They are dry because they evapour the non existing water and let it drop on themselves as non existing rain.
Fixed that for you ....
No idea why half of your posts are completely idiotic.
This refutation is also verified by the medieval warming period, where agriculture greatly expanded in Europe. ... Europe had 2 million inhabitants at that time ... perhaps less.
Yeah
The EU alone has 420 million ...
Did I mention that half of your posts are completely idiotic? Perhaps I did, but you know, this brain diseases spreading via the internet are ontaminous ...
Cost free eBook I read (by iBook/Kobo/Amazon/ObookO/Gutenberg etc.): "The Green Odyssey" by Philip Jose Farmer.
I like Tsingtao, so I tried another brand of Chinese beer. 'Sing Ha' (not the Thai malt liquor, the Chinese beer. Both apparently anglicise to almost the same name.)
Tried one, didn't finish it. Just awful.
Mentioned how bad it was to a couple of Chinese coworkers...their reaction...That's made with Shanghai city water, it will give you cancer, don't drink it. They're selling that in the USA? How is that possible?
This was a long time ago, 'poisonous chinese beer' ship has sailed.
John McAfee 'It was like that time I hired that Bangkok prostitute; to do my taxes, while I fucked my accountant'
While your "logic" seems OK, I have no reason to doubt the author's research on the specific regions that produce barley. Actual, local, modeling is far more likely to produce accurate results that global ideas. I am not saying that your overall approach is wrong. If the author's research only looks at current locations for barley and what would happen to them, then that research is correct, but the conclusion is flawed. If the research also looks at new areas that can start to grown barley, then it would be reasonable methodology.
My real problem with the author is the lack of an economic model for the pricing spikes. Price spikes like this don't tend to happen unless the shortage is extreme. Pulling 10% from a source will not be prioritized to some other "more noble" product like animal feed. The market will use the product by whoever can pay the most for it. If beer production is impacted and price doubles, then beer production can pay a lot more, and the price will level out long before it doubles. Perhaps this is a bias based on "centrally controlled" economies. I don't think German barley farmers could be "told" to not sell to beer producers by the German or EU government, even if the government wanted to.
We all remember the newest justice telling us how much he still likes beer.
Damn_registrars has no butt-hole. Damn_registrars has no use for a butt-hole.
How do you KNOW that no other planet has BEER???
I've abandoned my search for truth; now I'm just looking for some useful delusions.
Poland is very cheap right now for USD to get beer
I can't wait for Wine and Cheese to be affected by Climate Change, because THAT will finally get Congress's attention!
Oh, and Diet Coke, that will get the presidents attention like no other...
In fact, There are Giant Clouds of Alcohol Floating in Space.
I'm a good cook. I'm a fantastic eater. - Steven Brust
It's true that a warmer earth is expected to raise overall rainfall. The part you are missing is the rainfall pattern. The rainfall will tend to come in larger rains that have a larger time spread between rainfall events. The hotter temperatures between the rainfall activity will increase effective aridity.
I guess you mean "rainforest".
Incorrect. A rainforest is a SPECIFIC TYPE OF JUNGLE.
Definiton, Jungle:
"an area of land overgrown with dense forest and tangled vegetation, typically in the tropics."
Definition, Rainforest:
"a tropical forest, usually of tall, densely growing, broad-leaved evergreen trees in an area of high annual rainfall"
I love how you claimed I really meant a totally different word than the one I used, then proceeded to base a whole argument around the word you changed to...
You see, unlike you I have actually travelled to a lot of places around the Earth, so I have actually been in many different kinds of biomes (I included the link since you seem to have a problem, understanding the meanings of words)
There are many jungles that exist on the edge of the ocean, that do not exist because it is "evaporating water out of its own area (unless you consider the ocean to be it's area??? Urgh.)". I am really, really curious in fact where you got the idea that even rainforests were some kind of totally self-contained ecosystem since that is not the case either (do you really think all of the water comes from the area the rainforest is in? Oh honey).
Deserts work the exact same way. They are dry because they evapour the non existing water
No. Mr "evapour" . You may want to study what makes a region desert (and I'll just assume you are thanking me now for learning there are different kinds of desert). Also wondering what makes you think even what you said in any way disputes my point that deserts are mostly geologically created features.
Yeah ... Europe had 2 million inhabitants at that time ... perhaps less.
That completely orthogonal point doesn't change the fact that regions of agricultural use expanded. Why would it? You seem to be utterly confused here to where what you are saying is complete nonsense.
I'll let you have the last response, it was great to be able to use your very limited understanding of the world as an educational platform but you obviously have nothing intelligent to add to the conversation - I think we've extracted all of the learning points possible from you at this point so I don't see any point in reading what you have to say further.
"There is more worth loving than we have strength to love." - Brian Jay Stanley
It's an interplanetary treaty thing. It can look, taste and smell exactly the same but you can't call it beer unless it came from Earth.
I do not block ads. I do block third party scripts.
I have no reason to doubt the author's research on the specific regions that produce barley.
They aren't using research on specific regions, the paper says they are using CMIP5 for future predictions, which is very non-specific (by the way that link is the closest I could find for what they were trying to link to, since the link in the paper itself is actually broken).
They may know a lot about the regions producing barley but as far as I could tell didn't have a very strong explanation for predictions they were giving as to changes in that region.
Am I the only one who tried to read the paper? It doesn't seem like a greta paper and the links they use for further evidence are not at all specific.
"There is more worth loving than we have strength to love." - Brian Jay Stanley
2 years later, you're still posting the same wrong things.
The guy who said the election was rigged won the presidency with the second-most votes.
In fact, There are Giant Clouds of Alcohol Floating in Space.
I hear that stuff in space is more like Vodka than beer.. Vodka pored over ice cubes made of mud.
"File to fit, pound to insert, paint to match" - Aircraft Maintenance 101
Climate change actually means more rain. Warmer seas means more evaporation, and if that water goes into the air it has to come down again too, which means more precipitation. Of more concern that the amount of rain is where it goes - shifting patterns mean certain regions could still get dryer even as global rainfall grows, and if those regions happen to be major agricultural areas, famine is certainly a possibility.
quote>You can easily see this is true with a quick trip to any jungle, which is both hotter and wetter than most other place on Earth, yet also has the greatest abundance of vegetation...
If we go back before the current Ice Age, when CO2 was much higher and the dinosaurs weren't just raised on farms for sandwiches, we can see what a sustained Warm Earth is like for flora: there were 40-ton herbivores. An abundance of vegetation unlike anything we see today.
It's a fair call to point out that the farmable land for current crops will move farther north, and that can be disruptive. But then, we're hardly new to genetically modifyig crops these days. Unlike evolution, we don't have to take centuries to catch up to climate change.
Socialism: a lie told by totalitarians and believed by fools.
You can easily see this is true with a quick trip to any jungle, which is both hotter and wetter than most other place on Earth, yet also has the greatest abundance of vegetation...
It's almost like temperature and humidity are different variables. And someday, you might actually understand that. And thus understand why climate change is going to lead to expanding deserts. Hint: It's not all about the temperature.
Man, these people really are nuts!
You will NOT take our beer away!
Don't worry.. We obviously have a pro-beer Justice on the Supreme court now. We can get a "right to beer" case up there in a few years...
"File to fit, pound to insert, paint to match" - Aircraft Maintenance 101
The sad thing is, those of us that really would like to take issues like this seriously wind up getting lumped in with the hysterical Chicken Littles.
Indeed. TFA is Chicken Littleism at its worst. It is based on ridiculous assumptions. It assumes that barley will still be grown in the same fields. Obviously, as the climate changes the "barley belt" will shift northwards. It assumes that using barley as livestock feed will take priority over brewing, which is unlikely. Lastly, it assumes that the cost of barley is a significant factor in the price of beer. The barley in a pint of beer costs less than a cent.
well, maybe that bit of news will finally nudge a few hearts where influencing minds failed.
....to be fair the Alarmists have tried saying everything else will increase in cost/die off/etc., so why not beer?
Ferret
Sic gorgiamus allos subjectatos nunc
Moving cropland toward the pole may not work very well because the soil up there may not be nearly as fertile and the temperature swings will be wild with short turbulent growing seasons...
Greed is the root of all evil.
so beer availability could be further hindered by the likely prioritization of grain yields to feed cattle and other farm animals, rather than for brewing beer.
Dumbest set of priorities ever!
politicians are like babies' nappies: they should both be changed regularly and for the same reasons
the soil up there may not be nearly as fertile
Or it may be more fertile. I can't find anything about barley specifically, but wheat has higher yields per acre in the northern part of its range (average of 46 bushels/acre in the USA, but 49 in Canada).
the temperature swings will be wild
Barley is frost tolerant.
with short turbulent growing seasons...
The whole point of shifting north is that the growing seasons are getting longer. Also the hours of summer daylight needed for photosynthesis increases as you go north.
First, the models keep being changed to match current weather trends. They don’t have an accurate model that has survived five years yet, let along 50 needed for “climate change”.
Second, they aren’t considering the wider growing regions a cycle of global warming provides. The equatorial regions barely have a change, the closer to the poles the more the increase. So the corn belt will widen into Canada and the wheat belt will move to the northern territories.
So fear not beer swilling public, the region for growing barley will expand not dwindle.
- Tjp
I am in wallow with my inner money grubbing capitalistic pig. ... Oink!
This is all welcome good news and a case where I'm glad to be wrong. I like beer :-)
Greed is the root of all evil.
Obviously, as the climate changes the "barley belt" will shift northwards.
Except you realize that the land that is now in the "barley belt" is already owned by people who may not have the desire or ability to grow barley (or do so effectively if the land is held by many people-modern commercial farms are really big). So now what do you do? This is the danger of climate change-as temperate zones move, people will inevitably move with them, often to the determent of the people who were already there.
The only thing necessary for evil to triumph is for it to be pitted against a slightly greater evil
I like beer :-)
Really? Do you know Brett?
Except you realize that the land that is now in the "barley belt" is already owned by people
It is at least conceivable that some of these people are motivated by money.
So now what do you do?
Allow the free market to function.
Sure, but that's growing on the soil where it is now - soil that's built up over hundreds if not thousands of years. You can't extrapolate that and say that it would produce 60 bushels per acre if you moved even further north.
I haven't personally been and dug it up, but I've heard from several sources that the soil up there is thin and poor quality. Also, the Earth gets smaller as you get towards the poles, so there's less land. It's not rectangular like maps often make it appear.
Confucius say, "Find worm in apple - bad. Find half a worm - worse."
Not that I can recall :-)
Greed is the root of all evil.
Except you realize that the land that is now in the "barley belt" is already owned by people
It is at least conceivable that some of these people are motivated by money.
If there's one thing that degrees in history and political science have taught me, it's that people quite often do not act rationally, nor are they often capable of operating it what would objectively be their best interest.
The only thing necessary for evil to triumph is for it to be pitted against a slightly greater evil
The sad thing is, those of us that really would like to take issues like this seriously wind up getting lumped in with the hysterical Chicken Littles.
This OP needs to be up-voted. There are a lot of important issues to raise around climate change, but beer barley is not one of them. The analysis and conclusion of the article makes the environmental position look as dumb as a climate denier who points at a blizzard and says "See? Global warming is a hoax." Neither is helping their side.
ntr
Everyone else is drinking Pangalactic gargleblasters
The only thing necessary for evil to triumph is for it to be pitted against a slightly greater evil
That's the worst news I've heard today.
Much modern beer - or at any rate, most modern mass-produced beer - has a very high corn content. Hopefully corn can move north too. And hopefully the soils will be adequately fertile and the growing season adequately free of damaging temperature swings. BC if the weather keeps being weird, we'll need more acres under cultivation just to break even...
(and I'm not even a particularly avid beer-drinker).
"Truth is what works" -- William James "It works!!" -- o-dark-AM comment
Climate change actually means more rain. Warmer seas means more evaporation, and if that water goes into the air it has to come down again too, which means more precipitation. Of more concern that the amount of rain is where it goes - shifting patterns mean certain regions could still get dryer even as global rainfall grows, and if those regions happen to be major agricultural areas, famine is certainly a possibility.
Wow, and here I was thinking history was about to repeat itself and we where headed towards another "dust bowl" like drought. As I recall, there was a similar period of above average rainfall and abundant water in this area just before the skies dried up and everything started blowing around. Now you tell me that climate change (which really didn't exist prior to the dust bowl I guess) is just going to keep the rain coming here in Texas and that we needn't worry about the natural variations of the amount of water falling from the sky because it's going to increase. Good to know..
However, I'm just a wee bit skeptical about this, because you KNOW if we had a massive drought again the climate change narrative would be it was being caused by climate change, just like the current over abundance of water is blamed on it. It's what they do with ALL negative weather events you know, because nothing good could ever come from climate change.
"File to fit, pound to insert, paint to match" - Aircraft Maintenance 101
Have gnu, will travel.
Something that finally hits home on climate change, a beer shortage!
We all need something to drink ourselves silly as the water rises up over our ankles.
no, it isn't guaranteed, and in some case there could be a reversion as some crop/vegetable need a certain medium low stable temperature which could actually with a more chaotic continental climate, not be a given, and thus in some case we could have for certain country a lower yield.
C. Sagan : A demon haunted world:
http://www.amazon.com/gp/product/0345409469/
visit randi.org
I am very much aware that I gave a tremendously simplified explanation. I think I made the important point clear: How much rain falls is not as important as where it falls.
If there's one thing that degrees in history and political science have taught me, it's that people quite often do not act rationally
Have you ever worked on a farm? My first paid job was stacking hay bales. By the end of the season, I had gained about 10 pounds of muscle, and an understanding that farmers focus very much on their finances (I wasn't paid much).
A few farmers may fail to grow the most profitable crop, but regardless of how many degrees you have, it is absurd to believe that there will be a vast continent wide shortage of barley because farmers are too stupid to grow it.
AGW, or "Climate Change", or whatever the Nom de Jur is for it, isn't science. Science isn't "settled" and "settled science" isn't science. Climate Change is closer to Lysenkoism than it is to real science. The most disturbing aspect of today's climate change scientists is their willingness to go back into historical data and "correct" it to agree with their theories about CO2. The changes always cool the past and warm the present to make it appear that we are getting warmer. Yet, all their predictions about the disasters they claim would happen failed to materialize. Al Gore quoted an AGW scientist who predicted in 2007 that "within 5 years" ice would be gone from the North Pole for parts of the summer. It never happened. In fact, ice sheets have waxed and waned as they always have, even with AGW folks cooking, trimming and creating data out of thin air.
https://www.investors.com/poli...
Hansen and fellow scientist Michael Oppenheimer reported that if the buildup of carbon dioxide and methane continued at the current rate, the Earth would be between three and nine degrees Fahrenheit warmer by the years 2025-2050, and that sea levels would rise between one and four feet in the same time frame. They've got only 5 years left and our globe has to warm 2.5 to 8.5 degrees during that time.
https://www.thenewamerican.com...
Gore’s film predicted a 20-foot sea-level rise in the “near future” owing to ice melt from Greenland and Antarctica. As you can see, it hasn’t happened yet. Gore also predicted the devastation of low-lying Pacific Island nations such as Tuvalu because of sea-level rise. But Tuvalu and some other island nations have actually grown in size since Gore’s pronouncement. A British judge concluded in 2007 that the film contained at least nine factual errors and was, therefore, a political film — not a scientific one.
Whenever these predictions of doom don’t pan out, the climate charlatans simply move the prediction back another few decades, long past the time when they’ll actually have to answer for them. It’s a shell game. The real global warming is always under a different cup.
https://polarbearscience.com/2...
http://www.aei.org/publication...
https://casf.me/3-decades-fail...
There was only ONE BIG REASON for the climate hysteria of the last 20 years, which was revealed in the 2009 and 2011 whistleblower release of the CRU emails: redistribute wealth from the Western nations to those ruled by Marxists. So arrogant are they about it that a member of the UN-ICCP stated: ... One has to free oneself from the illusion that international climate policy is an environmental policy. This has almost nothing to do with environmental policy anymore ..."
"We (UN-IPCC) redistribute de facto the world's wealth by climate policy
-Dr. Ottmar Endenhofer. IPCC co-chair of Wkring Group 3, November 13, 2010 interview (with Dr. Charles Battig)
Running with Linux for over 20 years!
Bear in mind that the average temperature gradient over the earth means 1 degree C is 145 km or 150 m in altitude.
John McAfee 'It was like that time I hired that Bangkok prostitute; to do my taxes, while I fucked my accountant'
So: 'Smash Capitalism'?
Funny how that's always the answer.
John McAfee 'It was like that time I hired that Bangkok prostitute; to do my taxes, while I fucked my accountant'
If it has corn in it, it's not beer by definition.
You are thinking of Buttwieser.
John McAfee 'It was like that time I hired that Bangkok prostitute; to do my taxes, while I fucked my accountant'
Beer helps me live!
- 21 year old me
It is pitch black. You are likely to be eaten by a grue.
Uhhh, are you sure that maybe people just like beer? Even people in politics? Maybe population control is just a "happy side-effect" that they let slide? Of course there's the other side of the coin that means that's one less person paying taxes....uh oh, your theory just sprung a leak.
It is pitch black. You are likely to be eaten by a grue.
Hopefully corn can move north too.
Corn (maize to Europeans) doesn't need to move. It originated in Mexico and is highly heat tolerant. It is a very common crop in equatorial areas of Africa and South America.
You misunderstand. I'm not saying they would be too stupid to figure it out. Im saying they would either not own enough land to grow it efficiently or, as you yourself note, not be willing to put in the very hard work of farming
The only thing necessary for evil to triumph is for it to be pitted against a slightly greater evil
The always happened in the past right before the repartitioning of this country.
There is plenty of farmland north of barley's current range. Much of it is used for canola (rapeseed), a cool climate crop.
This may mean less canola, but Canadians can trade their beer for American soybean oil.
Or it may be more fertile.
And why would it?
Thawing permafrost has the characteristics of a swamp. Not very fertile.
The whole point of shifting north is that the growing seasons are getting longer
But they don't. Where did you get this idea from?
Also the hours of summer daylight needed for photosynthesis increases as you go north. ...
Yes. But the "summer" is shorter
You sound like the guy who suggested that 9 women will produce one child after one month ...
Cost free eBook I read (by iBook/Kobo/Amazon/ObookO/Gutenberg etc.): "The Green Odyssey" by Philip Jose Farmer.
They're selling that in the USA? How is that possible?
Was it imported from China or made under commission. It's amazing how few foreign beers are actually foreignly sourced. E.g. in Australia people don't drink Fosters for taste related reasons, however many of the foreign beers are actually brewed at the Foster's Brewery (formerly CUB) such as the iconic Guinnes.
In the Netherlands I've also seen some foreign beers with "Brewed by Heineken" written in the fine print.
Nah. The soil up here is just fine. In my distant youth, I worked for barley farmers at about 64 degrees N Latitude, about 100 miles south of Fairbanks, AK. It's hard, poor-paying work, but it put gas in my car and paid for a portion of my schooling.
Here's an article if you want a few minutes reading.
Good to know. Maybe it will soon be time to move to Alaska :-)
Alaska is next up on our bucket list of places to visit for a week or two.
Greed is the root of all evil.
Uhhh, are you sure that maybe people just like beer? Even people in politics? Maybe population control is just a "happy side-effect" that they let slide? Of course there's the other side of the coin that means that's one less person paying taxes....uh oh, your theory just sprung a leak.
There is no leak here. Only a endless stream of profits being enjoyed by the Medical Industrial Complex treating tobacco addicts and the "disease" of alcoholism. Taxes are chicken shit compared to draining entire nest eggs, which happens quite often as alcohol and tobacco addicts are forced to pay for treatments that might delay their demise.
Every side effect of legal-but-deadly products has been carefully thought out. It is sometimes beneficial to both treat and kill humans by keeping certain products legal. If the benefits were simply not there, the product would be illegal. Plain and simple. Cannabis being classified as a Schedule I drug is a perfect example of this. Obviously a war on drugs that includes marijuana creates far more of a benefit than legalization does. At least for those who profit the most from it.
It sure tasted chemical. Pretty sure it was the genuine Shanghai water article.
This was 10+ years ago, when China's cost advantage was even bigger.
Haven't seen that beer before or since. I think BevMo just bought a bunch, one time.
A lot of the outsourced copies in N America are made in Canada. Fosters is just as bad as anywhere, Canadian Kingfisher is undrinkable, the genuine article is a good hot weather lager beer.
John McAfee 'It was like that time I hired that Bangkok prostitute; to do my taxes, while I fucked my accountant'
MBA in Canada without GMAT- Get here information regarding How to pursue MBA without GMAT Score in Universities of Canada if you are planning to go Canada Read More about us visit https://www.meetuniversity.com...
Define 'mass produced'.
Samuel Adams, Gordon Biersch and Sierra Nevada all qualify IMHO.
Also American Beck's is now made in St Louis. Apparent InBev knows their other American breweries make an inferior product, as does anybody who ever had the misfortune of drinking anything that comes out of their CA brewery.
John McAfee 'It was like that time I hired that Bangkok prostitute; to do my taxes, while I fucked my accountant'
I donâ(TM)t care. I like german wheat beers like Weihenstefaner, Paulaner, and the microbrew made by a friend.
Is that the best you can come up with for global warming? Youâ(TM)ll have to try harder...
Stop worrying about the risks of nuclear power and start worrying about the risks of not using nuclear power.