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.

Comments

Main concern

[theurge14]

Yes, that's the thing I was worried about with climate change.

Re: Main concern

[habig]

Yeah, no shit... not to mention, alcohol has driven a lot more people apart than it has brought together.

Actually, there's an archaeological case to be made that the switch from humans as hunter-gatherers to humans as farmers was because of beer. At least, this is one interpretation of the fact that evidence of brewing is a common feature of many of the earliest farming communities. And thus, bringing everyone together in this "civilization" thing.

Of course, even if the motivation was Sumerian bros looking for keggers, the useful side effects (steady source of food, source of water that won't kill you because up till recently the only way to get antiseptic water was brew up the alchohol content or boil something (tea, coffeee)) certainly made the farming thing stick.

Re:Main concern

[hey!]

Well, this is the reason so many people focus on extremely unlikely consequences, like human extinction or the complete collapse of civilization. You just can't get most people to focus on the likely consequences, even some pretty serious ones, because twenty or thirty years in the future they seem trivial. Some people can't get their asses in gear unless they're facing catastrophe.

If complete catastrophe were likely, then even the people bankrolling the denialist movement would be concerned. But it's not. There will still be beer, coffee, beef and holiday resorts in a world that's 2C warmer, and if those things cost a lot more, they're counting on making enough money now by externalizing their costs that it wont' matter to them.

It's basically a scheme to transfer wealth, one that exploits most peoples' present bias.

Re: Main concern

[Hognoxious]

The first part of the beermaking process is boiling the grain to extract the sugars. As a convenient side-effect it kills most nasty germs.

Skunking is caused by exposure to light altering the alpha-acids, it's nothing to do with whether it's safe or not. If it's really off it will smell of vinegar, cheese and puke in various charming combinations.

Re:Main concern

[Anonymous Coward]

"In 2017, US had largest decline in CO2 emissions in the world for 9th time this century"

"U.S. carbon dioxide emissions in 2017 fell by 42 million tons compared with the previous yearâ"a bigger drop than any other country"

In contrast Europeâ(TM)s carbon dioxide emissions rose 92 million tons, or 2.5 percent. That includes increases in France (2 percent), Germany (0.1 percent), and Spain (7 percent). Carbon emissions rose in a majority of European countries last year, (This is based on data collected by the EU)

"Asia's growing economies contributed about two-thirds of the global increase in carbon emissions, the IEA found"

"China, the worldâ(TM)s biggest polluter, saw an increase of 119 million tons, or 1.6 percent. while Canadaâ(TM)s also rose 3.4 percent.

If you dispute these statistics do a little research and you will see the same statistics being supported by the commercial sector, government sector, and various climate scientists from across the political spectrum.

Seems like someone is taking climate change seriously in the US. And the US didn't need an international treaty to do so. I see people from all around the world waiting for the US to solve the problem for them. The various US administrations didn't want to sign up for the Paris Climate treaty because hidden underneath the high and mighty rhetoric and goal setting was the obliged the US to provide the aid money to help countries meet their pledged reductions. And all the negotiators, activists, and politicians making these grandiose emission reductions will most likely not be around in 25 years to see if any country had fulfilled the promises made in the treaty. There was no mention on how to enforce the dictates contained within the treaty. With no enforcement mechanism any agreement or treaty is worthless. And like the UN the US was going to be expected to absorb the largest percentage of any under lying costs related to the treaty.

Re: Main concern

[geekmux]

Yeah, no shit... not to mention, alcohol has driven a lot more people apart than it has brought together.

While I do not dismiss your fact, you obviously haven't thought this through.

If you think a world full of drunks is hard to deal with, imagine a world full of sober people.

Re: Main concern

[Ranbot]

The first part of the beermaking process is boiling the grain to extract the sugars. As a convenient side-effect it kills most nasty germs.

Skunking is caused by exposure to light altering the alpha-acids, it's nothing to do with whether it's safe or not.

^^ He's got it. The boiling part of making beer is what made beer safer to drink than water in medieval times. People then didn't understand why at the time, but they did notice people who drank more beer got sick less than people who drank more water.

...If it's really off it will smell of vinegar, cheese and puke in various charming combinations.

Even then drinking it usually won't sicken or kill someone like fecal coliform or dysentery commonly found in medieval water supplies. In fact, most medieval beer probably was sour to some degree by natural bacteria/yeasts in floating through the air or from the wood of the barrels beer was stored in and would have been considered normal.

Re: Main concern

[jeff4747]

Sure it does. You're not disinfecting. You're restricting growth. Doesn't take much alcohol (and competition from yeast) to do that.

Math Seems Very Odd

[Gaggme]

A 3-17% yield decrease leads to a 80-350% increase in price? Call me skeptical, but this seems a bit out of band.

Re:Math Seems Very Odd

[religionofpeas]

It's even worse, because the price of beer is only in a very small part determined by price of barley. Relative increase in price for beer should be much less than 3-17%.

Also, it's pretty much guaranteed that crop yield will improve more than 17% through clever engineering between now and 2100.

Re:Math Seems Very Odd

[ShanghaiBill]

Barley is currently selling for about $4 per bushel.

A bushel of barley weighs about 60 lbs.

A pint of beer uses about 1.5 ounces of grain.

$4/bushel / 60 lbs/bushel / 16 ounces/lb * 1.5 ounces = $0.00625.

So the barley in a pint of beer costs a bit less than a cent.

A few things...

[Strider-]

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.

Re:A few things...

[c]

The types of Barley you use for beer making is completely different than animal feed.

Both 6-row and 2-row could be used for making beer, depending on the type of beer, manufacturing process, and how stringent your definition of "beer" is. But the distinction isn't important... in the big picture, both types of barley need similar growing conditions and hence are competing for the same chunks of land. Farms will plant whatever gets them the best money, so a decrease in optimal barley growing space means either beer or meat will get more expensive.

Re:A few things...

[Hognoxious]

The original purpose of the Reinheitsgebot was as much to do with reserving wheat to be used for bread (so the peasants didn't starve) as it was about beer quality.

Currently, it serves the function of a pretentious twat detector, which it does rather well.

Ironically, if you follow it to the letter what you're going to get is a blandish lager, much closer to closer to American piss beer than to Paulaner, Guinness, Hoegaarden or Chimay.

Go vegan!

[TeknoHog]

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.

Re:Go vegan!

[religionofpeas]

It's not a choice. Have less kids or no kids AND become vegan

Have less kids, become a vegan, don't have pets, don't drive, don't heat your house, and commit genocide. There's a lot more you can do.

Re:So What?

[HornWumpus]

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.

Re:love your Mother!

[nitehawk214]

In fact, There are Giant Clouds of Alcohol Floating in Space.

Changing definition incorrect

[SuperKendall]

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.

Re:love your Mother!

[dcooper_db9]

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.

Re:As if prior alarmism didn't backfire...

[ShanghaiBill]

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.

Past performance in biology is not indicator

[aepervius]

That should be a mantra for you "Past performance in biology is not indicator of future performance". To convince yourself take yield before the haber revolution to a few year after and project to what yield we have by now. To make a more clear example, the potatoe yield since 1990 has stayed the same in UK : 40 tons per hectare, after an incredible increase it stayed stable (15 ton per hectare in 1885 , then nearly 80 years later it stayed at 20 tons per hectare, then jumping doubling until 1990). The fact is that such agricultural increase happens by steps, and there is no guarantee of a future steps up. If you want another example, our life expectancy exploded due to easy steps to do, but barely moved up in the last 20 years (in the western world). So to answer this :

Also, it's pretty much guaranteed that crop yield will improve more than 17% through clever engineering between now and 2100

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.