Beer and Climate Change
Plzen, Czech Republic, home of fine beers (cc photo by Donald Judge)
Via Joshua Tucker, new research out of the Czech Republic indicates that climate change is bad for beer quality.
Which seems like as good a time as any to discuss the perversity of agriculturally-oriented Americans tendency to oppose climate change legislation. Generally speaking, when you see some stuff being grown somewhere that’s because the climate in that place is well-suited to growing the stuff that’s being grown. What’s more, the people doing the growing have an approach in place that’s well-suited to the intersection between the stuff being grown and the local climate. Climate change will, well, change all that. Some farmers might see a net benefit, but in general incumbent farmers are going to lose out since in general we have our farmland and farm infrastructure and farm-related human capital all located in places that make sense given the current climate.
Instead of seeing it that way, unfortunately, the tendency seems to be for rural America and agricultural interests to see the climate change debate primarily as a kind of culture war issue. Farm interests and environmentalists have had a lot of fights over the years about other things that’s given environmentalists and the environmental movement a bad image in those circles. Siding against them seems like the smart thing to do.
45 Responses to “Beer and Climate Change”
Register
RSSLogin
Topic Cloud
ArchivesBlog RollAbout Matt YglesiasContact Me
Donate
September 16th, 2009 at 2:34 pm
Do you have any evidence that farmers see this as a culture war, rather than a short-term economics issue? Farmers are disproportionately high users of energy, and basically all plans on the table would have the effect of hurting them in the short term in order to stop something from happening that might affect their bottom line 20 years after they die.
September 16th, 2009 at 2:35 pm
Maybe they think there will be federal subsidies if things get too bad. I don’t know where they’d get that idea, though.
September 16th, 2009 at 2:45 pm
small time farmers and other rural Americans are not the greatest impediment to climate change legislation
September 16th, 2009 at 2:47 pm
Even in the long term, it’s not at all obvious that climate change legislation will benefit farmers. First, there’s the prisoner’s dilemma issue–everyone will benefit from climate change legislation, including people in other countries not affected by legislation, but the hit is directly towards farmers. Second, assuming that climate change does severely disrupt food supplies, it’s not obvious that this will be detrimental to farmers–farmers have suffered greatly over the last two centuries from oversupply, after all. It seems plausible to me that reduced global yields could greatly benefit agribusiness.
September 16th, 2009 at 2:48 pm
If MattY wants to get serious about the environment he can start talking about the inexorable rise in the world’s human population, which will fuck the environment one way or the other no matter what is done.
September 16th, 2009 at 2:53 pm
Realist, you’re probably right that climate change might mean good times for north american farmers, since food prices could skyrockets. But I don’t think they’re playing the long game like that. Its all based on short term opposition.
September 16th, 2009 at 3:05 pm
I agree with you, Aqua–I doubt there’s any kind of intentional desire to bring about climate change for long-term profit. I’m just saying that Matt may be wrong to wish that farmers did have that kind of long-term rational economic self interest–that if they did, it might add rather than subtract from their opposition towards fighting climate change.
September 16th, 2009 at 3:06 pm
Which seems like as good a time as any to discuss the perversity of agriculturally-oriented Americans tendency to oppose climate change legislation.
Somehow I doubt climate change will affect the taste of Miller Lite.
September 16th, 2009 at 3:08 pm
You should be able to payoff most farmers with some type of subsidy. There are only 2.2 million farms, 700K of which are not primarily commercial enterprises so the subsidy for the average farmer will be small. Small farmers are also more efficient at carbon sequestration than large commercial farms.
The problem is with Agribusiness and its lackeys. They will fight climate change since it will hit them on both production and distribution. Small timers are not sending their strawberries to the East Coast.
September 16th, 2009 at 3:13 pm
I posted the following over at Kevin’s site at MoJo:
You [progressives] can officially kiss off any chance of passing the Waxman bill or anything concerning climate change.
Posted by Declan McCullagh at CBSNews.com:
“The Obama administration has privately concluded that a cap and trade law would cost American taxpayers up to $200 billion a year, the equivalent of hiking personal income taxes by about 15 percent.
A previously unreleased analysis prepared by the U.S. Department of Treasury says the total in new taxes would be between $100 billion to $200 billion a year. At the upper end of the administration’s estimate, the cost per American household would be an extra $1,761 a year.”
So it seems that the conservative claims that this abomination would cost every American family $3000 a year, was a lot closer to the truth than your side who said the costs would be minimal or be offset by all the green jobs that Van Jones was going to create. I’m sure all those House Dems in marginal districts are going to be furious at Clueless Nancy for bringing the damn thing up for a vote. Even Obama can’t orate himself out of his only explicit pledge not to raise taxes on those earning under $250,000, and not the same fate as the first GW Bush.
I doubt that there is more than 20 Senators who would be stupid enough to vote to end debate on the House bill, let alone on actually voting for its passage.
September 16th, 2009 at 3:21 pm
Top Rated – Best penis enlargement – Pills, Devices, Patch and Exercises, Really working Can increase the growth of the penis up to 3-4 inches, without side effects, 100% Money Back Guarantee
>> author >><
September 16th, 2009 at 3:22 pm
From the same McCullagh blog post “Economic costs will likely be on the order of 1 percent of GDP, making them equal in scale to all existing environmental regulation.”
Why don’t we check chicounsel’s math
Democratic estimate $800
Republican estimate $3100
Treasury estimate $1700
so democrats are off by $900 while republicans are off by $1400 and yet chicounsel thinks the republicans were ‘a lot closer to the truth.’
September 16th, 2009 at 3:22 pm
I don’t think that this is going to be a concern for Tea Baggers, Bud Lite can’t possibly taste any worse.
September 16th, 2009 at 3:29 pm
@12: You are correct. And yet, the $1700 figure is more than enough to scuttle this.
God damn, it’s hard getting primates to take the long view.
September 16th, 2009 at 3:31 pm
“Generally speaking, when you see some stuff being grown somewhere that’s because the climate in that place is well-suited to growing the stuff that’s being grown. What’s more, the people doing the growing have an approach in place that’s well-suited to the intersection between the stuff being grown and the local climate”
I’m not an expert on the topic, but it seems to me as though
this is not at all true of the USA’s agriculture. We grow
thirsty crops like alfalfa in California’s deserts; we grow
massive amounts of corn, fertilized by synthetized chemicals
and watered by emptying aquifers; we graze cows on a whole
lot of unsuitable marginal land. And all this stuff happens
precisely because federal agriculture policy encourages it,
with huge tax breaks and subsidies in cash and in kind
(cheap water, price subsidies, grazing on federal lands etc).
We have an agricultural sector locked in a pathological
symbiosis with federal policy. It’s not surprising that they
kick and scream when you try to change those policies.
September 16th, 2009 at 3:34 pm
There’s a low pressure area parked around Iceland that has made the eastern half of the United States unseasonably cool. The rest of the world has been, as per usual, hotter than normal. As a result of the cool, rainy weather crops that expect warm and dry in July and August got soggy. Next year, farmers could plant crops that expect cool and wet and the low pressure parked over Iceland could park instead over Novaya Zemlya and the eastern half of the US could bake while Europe cools for awhile. (Untutored example.)
An excess of energy in the atmosphere increases variability in weather patterns. We don’t even have to get to dizzying increases in temps before the extra energy in the atmosphere starts to play Hobgoblin with 7 billion people. All we have to do is depress agricultural yields enough to hear people squeak like toy dolls and start shooting each other for food.
September 16th, 2009 at 3:44 pm
North American farmers use a lot of technology to grow crops. You can basically grow anything anywhere if you use enough energy/technology. I would expect north american farmers will continue to be able to grow food, although large areas like the prairies could conceivably fail. Of course, the rest of the world, lacking the nearly unlimited energy we’ve had, may be hard-pressed to get food out of their nice new dust bowls.
September 16th, 2009 at 3:48 pm
… also, this pattern of agricultural choices being strongly
influenced by culture and politics, rather than by environment
considerations, is pretty common. I’ve just been reading
Jared Diamond’s “Collapse”, which has case studies of various
past and present societies. The Norse colonies in Greenland
starved to death because they pursued their traditional, but
unsuitable, lifestyle of raising cows, pigs, and sheep; all
while the neighboring Inuit thrived living on fish, seal, and
whales. But interestingly, political leaders of some societies
were able to choose wise policies and implement them: on the
tiny pacific island of Tikopia, they exterminated all their
pigs (although eating pork was very desirable in their
culture) to pursue more efficient food production based on
fruits and nuts; in Japan, the shoguns stopped
deforestation and even replanted forests, so that a densely
populated island remains heavily forested even now.
In short, food production is definitely *not* just about
environment and efficiency. It’s very much cultural and
political, always and everywhere.
September 16th, 2009 at 3:52 pm
The way we farm now is a danger to the human race. If the economy turns around, gas prices will go up and the price of food will skyrocket. In 2007, the price of gas went to $4. That had a incredible effect on the price of food.
Most nitrogen used to make this so called cheap food comes from natural gas. It is not in infinite supply. Using natural gas, gas and diesel is only viable if it is cheap. when it gets expensive the whole house of cards collapses.
And yes the taste of cheap beer will not change.
September 16th, 2009 at 4:17 pm
Wine grapes are the canary in the coal mine. Wine grapes are sensitive to small changes in many different weather patterns, not just temperature. Because growing different grapes means making different wines, this is already a serious issue for vintners and university horticulture researchers. Canada may be the wine capitol of the world in the near future.
There is a movement in Australia to change farming patterns to restore the soil so that it is more productive and can sequester much more carbon by cutting out the artificial fertilizers, pesticides, and herbicides and adding more natural waste and green manures to the soil.
September 16th, 2009 at 4:20 pm
Is “Collapse” any good? I quite liked guns germs and steel and i’ve been wondering if i should pick it up.
September 16th, 2009 at 4:34 pm
Yeah. Dumbass farmers growing food for all the fat-asses living in the cities. They just can’t grasp how great it is that they be driven into bankruptcy by ‘climate change legislation’; IE: the biggest fraud in human history, otherwise known as cap and trade. If only they’d listen to the wise, Birkenstock wearing, Prius driving douchebags – who obviously know far more about agriculture than some hick farmer. They’re the ones thinking ‘long term’, not somebody who, you know, actually makes their living off the land.
No idea how environmentalists managed to turn off America’s breadbasket to the idea of addressing global warming.
September 16th, 2009 at 4:36 pm
“Collapse” is good, but not nearly the tour-de-force that is “Guns, Germs, and Steel,” IMHO.
September 16th, 2009 at 4:39 pm
N, if we’re going to be trading in stereo-types, I’d rather than listened to the wise lab-coat-wearing, slide-ruler-using, calculus-knowing scientists on this.
September 16th, 2009 at 4:39 pm
RRRR. “than” = “they”
September 16th, 2009 at 4:42 pm
““Collapse” is good, but not nearly the tour-de-force that is “Guns, Germs, and Steel,” IMHO.”
I agree. “Guns, Germs, And Steel” had a really compelling
argument, illuminated by the examples. “Collapse” has some
fascinating examples, but the overall argument is not
particularly illuminating or inspiring: human activities
interact with the environment in tricky ways, you can
screw up if you’re not careful. Well duh. The interest is
in the details of the different cultures and how they dealt
with (or failed to deal with) their problems.
I got it second-hand for $6, and it’s definitely worth that
much. But not on a par with GG&S.
September 16th, 2009 at 4:58 pm
Rob Mac,
Point taken about stereotypes. But understand, without the farmers on your side, this debate is an exercise in tail chasing. As commenters above pointed out, it’s in farmer’s interests to take this issue seriously. Any change in policy will affect them far more than Matt Yglesias.
And as for white coat wearing lab scientists, while the consensus seems to be global warming is real, the exact and total cause in in debate, meaning the solution is purely hyperbole at this point. Ramming through any economy-busting legislation, much less cap & trade seems to me as logical as invading Iraq because of September 11th. Some patience and some time to change minds is more prudent than passing half-assed, poorly written legislation that accomplishes nothing.
September 16th, 2009 at 5:04 pm
I’m no more in favor of busting the economy than you are, N. I think the economic impact of Waxman Markey on the economy has been greatly exaggerated. For one thing, the argument that it will “bust” the economy assumes that no innovation will occur as a result of the legislation.
I would think that people who like to tout the miracle of the market (I’m speaking here not of you, but of Republicans who generally make these kinds of claims) would realize that the market always innovates in response to government regulation.
September 16th, 2009 at 5:05 pm
But you’re right that winning over disparate groups (including farmers) over on the solutions is politically very important. No one wants to have something rammed down their throat that they think will destroy their livelihood.
September 16th, 2009 at 5:08 pm
No idea how environmentalists managed to turn off America’s breadbasket to the idea of addressing global warming.
They are turned off because they are constantly bombarded with propaganda and bullshit like “the biggest fraud in history” that cap and trade will “drive them into bankruptcy.” Doubtless they’d be a little more supportive if one side wasn’t constantly screaming lies into their ears.
Also, you misrepresent what is known about the risks of global warming. Even given that much of the data has fairly large error bars, at this point even conservative models are predicting very, very bad things, some of which are already happening. One of the main problems with this debate is that you can’t point to individual events, you can’t say “this hurricane is because of global warming” or “this drought is due to climate change” because that’s not how science works. But the trends are not good.
September 16th, 2009 at 5:24 pm
Aqua Regia,
First, I have yet to see one shred of evidence supporting the claim that global warming is making hurricanes more frequent or more fierce. The historical record (see the 1900 Galveston flood) says there is no correlation. Anyone the slightest bit skeptical will laugh that connection away.
Second, cap and trade is a boondoggle. I’m amazed the Bush administration didn’t pick up on this, it’s such a lousy idea. I think the worst estimates of how much it will cost are generous and it won’t do anything to slow down, much less reverse rising world temperatures. The only thing it will do is make a bunch of crafty ‘carbon credits’ traders very, very rich. That a former ENRON guy is one of the biggest supporters of this crap should tell you all you need to know.
Plus, just so we’re clear, no way in hell cap & trade ever passes.
September 16th, 2009 at 5:36 pm
“Do you have any evidence that farmers see this as a culture war, rather than a short-term economics issue? Farmers are disproportionately high users of energy, and basically all plans on the table would have the effect of hurting them in the short term in order to stop something from happening that might affect their bottom line 20 years after they die.”
Yeah, but amongst the CO2 mitigation alternatives are a lot of potential sources of revenue to those who have huge tracts of land.
Subsurface injection of CO2 for CO2 sequestration, solar, wind are going to involve buying rights on a lot of land. Similarly for CO2 sequestration by biochar, or if a biofuels alternative is found which is both economic and carbon-neutral.
Cap and trade or a carbon tax are going to be a net win for farmers, and would be so within a decade or so.
Also, Declan McCullagh was the same douchebag who put around the myth that Gore said he invented the internet. Nice to see McCullagh’s still a douchebag.
“And as for white coat wearing lab scientists, while the consensus seems to be global warming is real, the exact and total cause in in debate, meaning the solution is purely hyperbole at this point.”
Bullshit. The American Geophysical Union did a survey of the general public, geoscientists, and climatologists. Publishing climatologists, by a 97%-to-1% margin (EOS 90 (3): 22–23), believe that climate change is anthropogenic. Wherever you’re getting your “information” from, be aware they’re Just Making Shit Up.
September 16th, 2009 at 5:36 pm
They’re the ones thinking ‘long term’, not somebody who, you know, actually makes their living off the land.
You mean like the big farm operators on the west side of the San Joaquin Valley (where I live) who are poisoning their soil with selenium and salt, and depleting the aquifer that’s been around for thousands of years, but may not last another 20? Yeah, that’s taking the long view, all right.
September 16th, 2009 at 6:47 pm
Sock Puppet of the Great Satan,
The AGU stated that human activity is causing climate change. That’s tough to dispute. It doesn’t mean there’s a consensus on what to do about it, and there isn’t. Bichar (charcoal) sequestration is conceptual at this point, not an off the shelf, ready to use solution. That and your shout out for some undetermined carbon neutral magic fuel and pie in the sky at this point. Suggesting this will solve all of our problems and make farmers rich in ten years is science fiction. Hope is not a plan.
Cap & Trade will be a huge success in fleecing the taxpayers, ruining the economy and making ‘carbon credit’ shysters like Lou Pai of ENRON fame rich. And, seriously, this piece of crap legislation will not pass, ever.
September 16th, 2009 at 6:55 pm
Farmers are a much different group than farm operators, agribusiness and corporate farms. Those absentee owners only care about pollution and water to the extent it impacts their profits. Increased residential development are a main component in increased pollution and water usage in the SJV.
September 16th, 2009 at 7:41 pm
Get you heads out of your butts. Farmers are closer to the land and the climate than any of the jerks that think Global Warming is real. If there was a real threat to their farms and our food supply, you would have heard a lot from the agricultural community.
I predict that within a year or two at most the whole AGW religion will be totally discredited and many politicians and quite a few scientists who were so easily duped into abandoning healthy skepticism will be desperately seeking some kind of face-saving formula that will permit them to retain their jobs. So sad that in the meantime billions of dollars that could have been used to help the impoverished of this world will be wasted attempting the impossible task of “curing” a non-existent problem.
September 16th, 2009 at 7:46 pm
Farmers are a much different group than farm operators, agribusiness and corporate farms.
But the big operators (like you, I decline to call them “farmers”) are the ones with the money and the ears of the politicians. They even have their own astroturf groups, like the Latino Water Coalition. They demonize environmentalists and liberals, and tell the government to “get off their backs,” while simultaneously demanding more multi-billion dollar water projects at public expense.
Increased residential development are a main component in increased pollution and water usage in the SJV.
Air pollution, yes. Soil contamination and groundwater depletion, not so much. And while urban use has been increasing, agriculture still gets the lion’s share of developed water.
September 16th, 2009 at 7:49 pm
I predict that within a year or two at most the whole AGW religion will be totally discredited and many politicians and quite a few scientists who were so easily duped into abandoning healthy skepticism will be desperately seeking some kind of face-saving formula that will permit them to retain their jobs.
I predict that in a year or two, you will have conveniently forgot you made this prediction.
September 16th, 2009 at 11:24 pm
Cap and Trade doesn’t work, won’t work and has never worked in the past. Check out how well it hasn’t worked where it has been implemented. It is nothing but a form of taxation that has no impact on reducing CO2 or use of fossil fuels.
Cap and Trade is a total misdirection activity.
September 17th, 2009 at 12:43 am
Cap and trade worked fucking brilliantly to curtail acid rain, you dipshits. There’s no reason to believe it wouldn’t also work to curb carbon emissions.
September 17th, 2009 at 12:59 am
It seems to me that the two claims of 1) It won’t work to lower CO2 levels and 2) It will be disastrous for the economy are somewhat mutually exclusive. If the economy craters, then that would be good for lowering CO2 levels. And if the regulation isn’t strong enough to impact CO2 levels, then it seems unlikely to slow down economic growth appreciably. Pick a lie and stick to it.
Also, as mentioned above, on the subject of acid rain:
A cap-and-trade system was imposed on sulfur dioxide emissions in the US in the mid-1990s. As of the end of 2002, the last reporting period available as of this writing, reduction of SO2 was ahead of schedule—down 41% from 1980—with the market price for emission allowances significantly lower than the dire predictions made by industry critics prior to the program’s implementation. As one can see from the EPA chart below, wet deposition of sulfur dioxide is much less today than it was in 1990. Overall airborne sulfate concentrations have decreased similarly.
http://www.grinningplanet.com/2004/02-12/cap-and-trade-pollution-credits-eco.htm
QED, Bitchez!
September 17th, 2009 at 12:59 am
Yep. Cap and trade is why you don’t hear anybody complaining about acid rain anymore. They fixed it. At least in North America. China, not so much.
September 17th, 2009 at 1:11 am
China is currently taking strong steps towards reducing their sulfur dioxide emissions. Their goal is to be 10% lower than 2005 levels by 2010, and their level of sulfur dioxide output is now falling every year, not rising. Very good signs indeed.
Unrelated side note, but its interesting that sulfur dioxide is one gas thats known to have a tiny global cooling effect, as opposed to greenhouse warming. Not that that makes acid rain worth it, mind you.
September 17th, 2009 at 1:24 am
Giving credit to a cap & trade legislation for reducing acid rain is absurd. Sulfur dioxide levels are much lower than in 1980 because of the collapse of the American steel industry. Haven’t you guys ever been to Western Pennsylvania?
If you’re suggesting that cap and trade for carbon should follow that model, good luck selling that product. Taxing the American economy to death to stop global warming isn’t an idea the country’s going to go for.
Seriously, that’s the best you’ve got for justifying the biggest tax hike in American history? If you think cap & trade is going to ever pass the congress, much less magically turn the clock back on global warming, you’re smoking crack.
September 18th, 2009 at 4:38 pm
[...] this when The Monkey Cage linked to it earlier this week so I could blog about it this Friday, but Matt Yglesias beat me to the punch. I’m assuming that many of you do not bother to read both of us, so it only very slightly [...]