Climate, Habitat Threaten Wild Coffee Species 274
An anonymous reader writes "BBC reports that Dr. Aaron Davis of the Royal Botanical Gardens claims 'almost three-quarters of the world's wild coffee species are threatened, as a result of habitat loss and climate change. "Conserving the genetic diversity within this genus has implications for the sustainability of our daily cup, particularly as coffee plantations are highly susceptible to climate change.'"
Daily cup? (Score:4, Funny)
Re: (Score:2)
Just go to bigger cups. I swear the former HR director here used to drink out of what I can only describe as a coffee BUCKET. It had to be at least 64oz.
Personally though I've got this weird handicap in that I can't seem to make good coffee if my life depended on it, so I usually save coffee drinking as an occasional treat during a trip to the local coffee-house and get my daily caffeine from Diet Mt Dew (which I drink about 6-8 of per day :)).
Making good coffee (Score:2)
Try a different preparation method, or methods plural, until you find a method that works for you. Also, try different beans, and different degrees of grind.
For example, get an espresso maker, if you don't already have one.
Or do what I do: get a Turkish-style brass pot, and very finely milled Turkish-style coffee, which cooks up thick-as-sludge coffee delight. (I add ground cinnamon, sometime
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
try this next time you make coffee.
- make sure the equipment is clean; Just rinsing it out isn't enough, everything needs to be washed.
- grind the beans yourself, or buy fresh grounds. Coffee grounds go stale in just a few days.
- use lots of coffee. 2 tablespoons per cup.
- use good tasting water. If you don't like the taste of the water before it becomes coffee, you probably won't like it post brewing.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Whoa there, Nelly. That's a lot of coffee, way more than most people use. If the parent to your post likes the coffee from his local coffeehouse, then likely he'll want something a little weaker than that.
My suggestion: buy a good, basic coffee maker. Buy a coffee measuring cup that is narrow and deep (to better accurately measure)... or use a kitchen scale to measure. Keep experimenting with water temperature (cold is best, I use ice water), the brew setting
Re: (Score:2, Insightful)
Shipping a boutique product hundreds of miles from growers that may or may not be fairly treated and then worrying about the minuscule amount of sustainable wood fiber in the accessory is pretty inane.
Re: (Score:2)
Sounds like you're drinking failcoffee.
Switch to freshly roasted (but not too dark) quality coffee, which is ground just before brewing.
Re: (Score:3, Funny)
Re: (Score:2, Informative)
I remember watching a documentary about caffeine and its effects on the brain. At first, it provides a boost to mental alertness, but when consumed on a regular basis, this edge dissapears and caffeine is required to provide your old regular mental alertness. This symptom dissapears after 2-3 weeks of abstinence.
Do what I did, ween yourself off of it, and only consume it when you really need it. This way, caffeine actually gives you a boost rather than bringing you back up to speed. I love the practical
Re: (Score:2)
Au contraire. The better the coffee, the more cups I'll have. At home, I'll either have espresso or French-press/cafetiere coffee. On the move, Starbucks espresso is a bit too dark a roast to my taste, but Italian ice cream parlors are usually a relatively safe bet for a good cup. When given the choice between instant coffee and tea, I'll have tea. Life's too short for bad coffee. And there's definitely more to coffee than just caffeine content or bucket sized cups.
So let me get this straight (Score:5, Funny)
A risk of Pacific island nations ending up underwater? Not a serious problem. But threaten my coffee supply and I'll take to the streets!
Something might be a bit off on the priorities there.
Re:So let me get this straight (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:So let me get this straight (Score:5, Insightful)
So you start by stating how rational you think the view on terrorism has been, and go on to lament that we don't (enough) apply the same hysteria to climate change?
With the current level of polemic, those who point out holes in your arguments are painted as akin to holocaust deniers, flat-earthers and creationists and now as apparently so cynical that they care more for a cup of coffee than for people who see their land go underwater.
It seems so hysterical at times that if someone tries to object to this coffee claim by pointing out that it seems likely that the coffee plant would be able to *adapt* to climate change, the way it and everyone else on this planet has been doing for quite a while, it would almost not surprise me to see him labeled a "creationist"...
Re:So let me get this straight (Score:5, Interesting)
Any holes are holes in the small details. The big picture is that retaining more heat will make things get hotter. That's about as clear as that the earth is round.
The arguments about the specifics of what exactly is going to happen, but just because somebody got some of that wrong doesn't invalidate the big picture. The weather report may be wrong about that it's going to rain tomorrow, but that doesn't disprove that it rains a lot in London.
Do you realize that "adaption" is a potentially very nasty process?
People talk of "adaption" as if in the case of coastal cities getting flooded people would just grow gills all of a sudden and happily live underwater.
Adaption for humans will also be a messy thing. Suppose coastal cities get flooded. Well, we'll adapt, sure, through massive migrations, massive rebuilds of architecture destroyed by floods, and massive creation of new engineering projects like levees to prevent it. We'll definitely manage. However that won't happen for free, and you're going to end up paying for it, with your taxes, for instance. Some people will pay for it with their life for not getting out of the way soon enough, or will have their enconomic situation majorly screwed up.
Other life no doubt will adapt, but that doesn't mean everything will just get used to the new conditions and otherwise stay the same. It could well mean a species we like dying off and getting replaced with some weed that doesn't mind the new conditions. Over enough time things will rebalance themselves, but not necessarily in a way we will find convenient.
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
So you start by stating how rational you think the view on terrorism has been, and go on to lament that we don't (enough) apply the same hysteria to climate change?
You've misinterpreted what the OP was saying. I suspect deliberately.
With the current level of polemic, those who point out holes in your arguments are painted as akin to holocaust deniers, flat-earthers and creationists and now as apparently so cynical that they care more for a cup of coffee than for people who see their land go underwater.
Well firstly, the denialist movement hasn't found any holes in the theory. Which kind of makes your argument a non-sequitur, but never mind. The reason the term "denialist" is in common use is for the following reasons:
Re:So let me get this straight (Score:4, Insightful)
That's because fighting terrorism merely requires giving up your freedoms, whereas fighting climate change requires giving up your SUV and that shit is serious fucking business.
Re: (Score:2)
Climate change however has been outed as the scam it is
Where?
And if you say the CRU email leaks, you'd better have new and significant findings from in there, because I haven't seen evidence of a scam yet.
Re:So let me get this straight (Score:5, Insightful)
It is the same setup as the Iraq war:
- all the experts agree
- if you don't support it, you're a terrorist
- sudden alarmism because of unrelated events (9/11 for iraq, the al gore movie for this)
- exaggerated claims (mushroom clouds vs new york under water)
- scaremongering
- ignore evidence that shows that the conclusions were assumed
I don't know much about climate or the statistics behind it. And I didn't know anything about WMDs or the intelligence business. But I know something about human motivations and in both cases, I could smell the BS a mile away.
Re:So let me get this straight (Score:4, Insightful)
"I could smell the BS a mile a way" does not actually prove you're intelligent or insightful. It might just as well prove that you distrust people who tell you you're doing something that is causing something bad. Or something else entirely. But feel free to interpret the CRU "Scandal" as you like to reinforce your own opinions.. just remember it doesn't really prove anything.
Re:So let me get this straight (Score:5, Insightful)
But feel free to interpret the CRU "Scandal" as you like to reinforce your own opinions.. just remember it doesn't really prove anything.
It proves there is a significant agenda on the part of some of the scientists. Maybe this wasn't a surprise to you (it shouldn't have been if you've paid attention) but it does mean they will have to demonstrate their points with evidence, they can't just say they know because they are experts. Appeal to authority is a logical fallacy when the authority has been shown to be biased.
Specifically for global warming, this is the evidence I want to see:
1) I want to see that CO2 causes the greenhouse effect (this is actually fairly well established by evidence).
2) I want to see that atmospheric CO2 is also increasing (also fairly well established)
3) I want to see that the global temperature is rising (some folks dispute this, but in fact the temperature record for the last few decades seems not unreasonable to me)
4) I want to see demonstrated that the rise in CO2 is having a significant effect on the global climate. This has NOT been demonstrated with any degree of certainty.
I've looked all over to find evidence of number 4, and I haven't seen a conclusive link anywhere. There is, on the other hand, evidence that other unknown processes in the environment are having a bigger effect on global temperature than CO2.
When people are saying we should divert massive percentages of the global economy without demonstrated exactly what the effect of reducing CO2 would be (this is another unknown; it might actually make very little difference), yeah, that counts as BS.
Re:So let me get this straight (Score:5, Interesting)
Well, 1 and 2 have been clearly proved - it's clear that CO2 is a very effective greenhouse gas, and that ice cores show that over the past 600,000 years or so the global CO2 concentration has varied, but remained relatively low. It's only since the industrial revolution that CO2 concentration has shot up so sharply, far, far higher than it has ever been over a timescale that makes human existence look tiny.
Knowing that high CO2 concentrations do affect temperatures, even at lab scale and we're changing the concentration in the atmosphere so drastically, do you not think it might be prudent to prevent it if we can, regardless of whether we know *for certain* that it is raising the temperature of the earth?
We have the ability to cut the levels of CO2 we emit, so it seems sensible to do so. Maybe it will all be for nothing and we later find that the earth was naturally warming anyway, but we might just find that it was the right thing to do. If we do nothing, it could be far too late.
I liken this to the widespread use of the "miracle" DDT; sure, it's a great pesticide... until we learned about accumulation in higher predators and the extreme persistence of organochlorines in the environment.
Or the use of CFCs - a fabulous set of molecules, but with a rather unpleasant effect on atmospheric ozone that wasn't discovered until later.
Decent scientists on the whole don't have agendas in the same way that oil companies, coal-burning energy companies and governments do (unless they're paid specifically to have an agenda) - it's pretty easy to spot a scientist with an agenda: just look at the research. There's a reason that peer-reviewed research carries weight - reproducible results, by different people, and even dissenting opinions.
Real scientists don;t mind you checking their data, and there is a lot of it about.
There's also a very large propaganda machine that is left over from the "more doctors smoke camels" days that is very well funded, whose sole job it is to make people with no scientific qualifications question the science - often with outright lies, or by using the terminology of science as a tool. Just look at the way the term "theory" is viewed by the general public in regard to evolution; not really understanding how science defines the term.
On the evidence I have seen, I am in the belief that human industrial processes are warming the earth and that we need to do something about it quickly before the damage is very severe. We're not going to die out, and the world isn't going to kill us all like some $100 million Micheal Bay film, but there will be some significant changes that are going to affect a large proportion of the human population if we don't work on the problem. It will likely be the poorest portion of the population in the least developed nations first of course, which is another reason why I think people just want to distance themselves from it: they just don;t think it will affect their daily life, or think it is too big to fix and thus don;t want to think about it.
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
We have the ability to cut the levels of CO2 we emit, so it seems sensible to do so. Maybe it will all be for nothing and we later find that the earth was naturally warming anyway, but we might just find that it was the right thing to do. If we do nothing, it could be far too late.
It's a tradeoff. What exactly are you proposing we do it cut levels of CO2? Stop driving? Cap and trade? Each of these have a cost associated with them. How much are you willing to cut in order change something?
On the evidence I have seen, I am in the belief that human industrial processes are warming the earth and that we need to do something about it quickly before the damage is very severe.
On the evidence I have seen, I am of the belief that California will fall into the ocean, but there is nothing we can do about it and the damage will be very severe. In fact, it is already happening [sfgate.com]. This is an effect known as continental drift (and in the case of those apartments, erosion), and it
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
So in essence "it's probably on a geologic timescale if it's happening at all so it doesn't affect me, fuck my grandkids' grandkids though".
The "what are we going to do" is everything - people said the same thing about anti-knock additives to petrol - that it would be too expensive and what about all those old cars that need 4 star?! Oh woe, the economy! But we have managed it.
Changing the way we work industrially is going on all the time - greener solvents, more efficient processes (lower temps/pressures,
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
It is hard for you to believe?
Yes - you've hit the nail on the head. It's hard to believe. My scepticism is a direct result of the irrational leap in your argument.
It shouldn't be, because it is such a complex system that we know so little about.
It's not really that complicated. In a bell jar, CO2 acts as a greenhouse gas. It will do the same outside of the bell jar as well - a change in location will have no effect on the thermodynamic properties of a molecule of CO2. This is high school level thermodynamics. The complexity arise when you need to measure the size of the subsequent effect, as other things come into p
Re: (Score:2, Interesting)
Re: (Score:2)
If you haven't seen evidence of a scan yet, then you have been paying attention. What is interesting about he CRU e-mails is how little evidence they give for a scam. Compare them to some of the tobacco company documents to see what a real conspiracy looks like.
Re: (Score:2)
Something might be a bit off on the priorities there.
Absolutely. Those Pacific islands should be figuring out what coffee grown in their soil or crapped out by the local fauna will taste like.
Re: (Score:2)
"A risk of Pacific island nations ending up underwater? Not a serious problem."
Not to be harsh, but the nations that would be underwater are small and not worth sacrifice by the large and important. I understand that there is sentiment in behalf of preserving every culture, but outside that there is no reason to do so. There are vast quantities of humans and as with other animals, some will thrive at the expense of others.
As for coastal cities, they can be replaced in a generation with improved infrastructu
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
You could've phrased it far more succinctly as "Poor people are poor, so fuck 'em!"
Re: (Score:2)
Sadly, a lot of the world works that way.
Re: (Score:2)
Broken window fallacy.
Now, I'm not normally one to trot out a canard often (mis)used by the armchair Austrian economists, but it definitely applies here.
We're far better off spending cash as a "stimulus" on building new infrastructure, extending capabilities, than in replacing destroyed infrastructure. I use the term "infrastructure" broadly here -- pollution-prevention or remediation efforts should be included as
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
And if you need an idea of exactly how expensive and time-consuming rebuilding a coastal city is, I suggest you pay a visit to New Orleans.
Re: (Score:2)
It's not the first time.
Ever stopped to consider the implications of speed bumps?
The prospect of running over some hapless pedestrian isn't enough to get most people to slow down.
The prospect of slowly wearing out your suspension and feeling mild discomfort for a second, however, will.
Maybe I'm trolling... (Score:3, Interesting)
Watch now that people will suddenly care about climate change just as people only cared about fuel efficiency when gas prices rose!
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
Eh... When the climate change happens, I will be ready with my parka and a warm fire.
Re: (Score:2)
Me, I'll be headed to the Canadian beaches!!
Re: (Score:2)
You mean like this one, one of my local beaches:
http://nudisttravel.blogspot.com/2007/05/wreck-beach-pictures-of-vancouvers.html [blogspot.com]
So? (Score:2)
I don't drink coffee.
Re: (Score:2)
Maybe, but you'll still have to fight off the shambling hordes of caffeine addicts if anything serious happens to the supply.
Re: (Score:3, Funny)
So that is how we'll get a zombie apocalypse!
Finally, after all this waiting (yes, also not drinking coffee/tea/etc.)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
They still can switch to tea. Plenty of caffeine there and because of all the tannines it acts milder and longer.
Re: (Score:2)
Ew, no thanks. Even the British can't drink tea without loading it with milk and sugar. Plus, I'd have to drink at least twice the volume to get the same amount of caffeine. Worst case scenario, I'd switch to caffeine pills before drinking tea daily.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
I don't either, but I'm surrounded by people who do, which makes it a problem for me. I'd imagine you're in the same situation.
In England tea drinkers are also very common. I don't like either, and usually drink water at work. Sometimes I drink squash [wikipedia.org]. In a coffee shop I'd order hot chocolate.
I once saw a colleague drinking Bovril [wikipedia.org] (a runny paste made from cows, which can be diluted in hot water). Yuk!
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
No he doesn't only the support techs here do.
Re: (Score:2)
Could you provide a list of things you do eat, drink, use?
You know, a whitelist so we don't waste our time worrying about things that don't affect LWATCDR in future...
Do they make drinkable coffee? (Score:3, Funny)
Free market saves.
Specifically harvest and sell these beans with the usual "its green 25-50%" markup plus the 10-15% free trade thing. Becomes desirable to save these species for profitability, the green-tards are separated from their money before they can do something annoying with it, and everyone wins.
Not a new warning (Score:4, Informative)
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Amazing how climate change seems to be the bane of all existence...
Yep. Who would have thought that global warming could actually affect different things across the globe.
Re:Not a new warning (Score:4, Insightful)
The decided that "Global Warming" changed to "Global Climate Change" you know in case it started cooling. They should just change it to "Global scary thing that affects everything you do and you need to give us money to protect you from it."
Re:Not a new warning (Score:4, Insightful)
No, they changed "global warming" to "climate change" because idiots like you thought "global warming" meant that every single point on the planet would monotonically increase year-over-year, and to a lesser extent because "climate change" is more accurate anyway because the increase in carbon dioxide has other effects too, such as ocean acidification. Unfortunately, they failed to consider that idiots like you would think this is more evidence of a massive global conspiracy to steal your freedom and monies.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
He was obviously being sarcastic.
Re: (Score:2)
The whole globe will get warmer, but the whole globe isn't a uniform temperature. Prevailing winds and oceanic currents -- which move lots of heat around the world -- are likely to change, which will affect which places are warmed or cooled by them.
For instance, Norway and the British Isles are significantly warmed in summer by the currents in the Atlantic (it's currently 2C in London, and -10C in Quebec, which is further south). If those currents shift slightly, that will make these countries much colder i
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
As found on the warmlist, this isn't the first time climate change has been accused of threatening coffee. Amazing how climate change seems to be the bane of all existence...
Well, given that every species on the planet, including ourselves, is thoroughly adapted to their current environment=, I'm a little shocked you find that surprising.
Of course, species will adapt or die off, but that's really the point: The species we rely on now are exquisitely adapted to their specific climates (coffee has a very nar
Re: (Score:2)
Well, given that every species on the planet, including ourselves, is thoroughly adapted to their current environment=, I'm a little shocked you find that surprising.
For humans, which environment would that be? The Sahara Desert, the Russian Siberia, the Amazon Rainforest, the Himalayan Mountains, the US Plains, the Pacific Islands? Humans have adapted to be able to live everywhere.
Re:Not a new warning (Score:5, Insightful)
Humans have adapted to be able to live everywhere.
Yeah, no kidding. But if the climate *changes*, then we have to actively adapt, and that means some people will die. Heat waves will kill some, cold snaps will kill others. Flooded coastal areas will displace some, while droughts and torrential rains will displace others. Meanwhile, crop and grazing land will be destroyed so that those who do adapt to the changes run the risk of starvation.
Will humans adapt? Sure! The sufficiently rich will move to more hospitable areas. Sufficient rich farmers will move to new cropland. But the subsistence farmers and the poor who lack the means to move will die.
But, eh, fuck them, right?
Re: (Score:2)
Nah... We the poor will use the same thing that we have used since the beginning of time... Our feet, or our boats to get where we need to.
And go where? Do you understand how difficult it is to deal with millions of displaced, starving refugees? What, you think they just wander over into the next nation and set up shop? Seriously, how naive are you, exactly? All over the world there are examples of displaced populations (Africa is a great place to start looking) and the hardships they've endured, yet yo
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
now it's serious (Score:3, Funny)
OK Earth, you've threated my coffee supply. Now I'm listening!
This is an outrage! (Score:2)
That's it. I didn't really care about climate change before, and whether or not it was anthropogenic, but THIS MUST END NOW!
WE MUST SAVE THE COFFEE! SAVE THE COFFEE!
Finally... (Score:5, Funny)
man will have a true incentive que stop polluting.
There's a joke in Brazil about a lion that fled the zoo and ended up in a government building. Each day he would eat a civil servant. He was doing very well, until one day he ate the lady in charge of making coffee. Then people finally noticed something bad had happened.
Adaption (Score:5, Insightful)
As Coffea arabica has shown us, in the age of man, being delicious is a very powerful adaption.
Re:Adaption (Score:5, Insightful)
Absolutely. It's not unlike the modern banana monoculture. As a species, the modern banana has been *very* successful, thanks to it being desirable to humans.
But monocultures are also very dangerous. By minimizing genetic variation in a population, the species becomes extremely susceptible to new types of disease, fungus, and so forth. And again, bananas teach us much, here, as there's great fear that the modern banana could end up being wiped out by disease.
Thus, protecting these heirloom species is extremely important, as it provides a pool of genetic diversity is present in the wild, providing some protection against the dangers of monoculture.
Banana monoculture has failed before (Score:4, Informative)
Until the 1950s, the majority of bananas consumed via expert markets were of the Gros Michel [wikipedia.org] variety. However these were very susceptible to Panama disease. A substitute had to be found and we now mainly eat the Vietnamese Cavendish variety.
Banana monoculture is certainly capable of failing.
Re: (Score:2)
The banana went extinct 60 years ago.
No, really. Well, the best cultivar, the Gros Michel [wikipedia.org], anyway. It was a hugely profitable worldwide monoculture that was easy prey for the panama disease [wikipedia.org]. The banana we eat today is the less tasty, more easily bruised Cavendish variety.
And now, panama disease has mutated [nytimes.com] and is threatening our Cavendish monoculture.
We never do learn our lessons, I suppose.
Re: (Score:2)
Very much so. Michael Pollan's book "Botany of Desire" is about the way four plants' usefulness has been a great advantage to the plant. Not just deliciousness (apples and potatoes) but also attractiveness (tulips) and, uh... cannabis.
Very good read.
http://www.amazon.com/Botany-Desire-Plants-Eye-View-World/dp/0375501290#reader_0375501290 [amazon.com]
"First they ignore you, then..." (Score:2)
"First they ignore you, then they ridicule you, then they hack your email servers, then you threaten their coffee supply and they FREAKING SURRENDER."
Watch out for the USA, Cameroon! (Score:2)
"'almost three-quarters of the world's wild coffee species are threatened"
Finally, American politicians might take notice of climate change and seriously engage with the issue!
Oh wait, when their access to oil was threatened they just invaded an oil producing country. Err, watch out Cameroon.... ;-)
Re:Watch out for the USA, Cameroon! (Score:4, Informative)
Someday, the people who say this are going to learn how stupid it is.
The USA has never imported oil from Iraq. Not now, not when Saddam was in charge, not before that.
The USA imports less than 10% of its oil from the Middle East. The largest source of imported oil in the USA is that internationally known terrorist hotspot Canada...
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
It's not about US-consumed oil.
It's about US (and British!) companies getting the oil to enrich themselves, their boards, and associated politicos (Cheney, et al).
No oil contracts (Score:2)
It's not about US-consumed oil. It's about US (and British!) companies getting the oil to enrich themselves, their boards, and associated politicos (Cheney, et al).
Except no western companies got any of the oil contracts from Iraq, not even BHP.
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
Increasing the world supply of oil decreases the global price of oil. Since the USA is a net importer, that benefits the USA.
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
You'll have to look a little deeper to find the true reason we invaded Iraq (hint: it [newamericancentury.org] wasn't [newamericancentury.org] exactly [newamericancentury.org] a [newamericancentury.org] secret [wikipedia.org]).
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
Leaving aside the broader question, about which I really don't want to speculate, period, the DOE says you're wrong in your data:
http://www.eia.doe.gov/pub/oil_gas/petroleum/data_publications/company_level_imports/current/import.html [doe.gov]
and http://tonto.eia.doe.gov/dnav/pet/pet_move_impcus_a2_nus_ep00_im0_mbbl_m.htm [doe.gov]
The US does, in fact (and long has) important oil from Iraq and we get well over 10% of our oil from the Gulf/Middle East at ~15%, approximately what we get from Canada. Which is, to be fair to you,
They're recruiting (Score:3, Funny)
Happy day, geek walking up to coffee machine to read note: "Please be informed, due to potential global warming, there is no more coffee, EVER.".
Geek falls on his knees to the floor, with his dilbert printed mug explodes in chards upon impact on the same floor, with a sharp sound as the geek releases a load screaming while shaking his fist at the heavens:
"OMG NOT MY COFFEE! FOR THE LOVE OF GOD! ID ANYTHING FOR COFFEE! IF I ONLY SAW THIS ONE COMING! I was soo proud, thinking I could bend nature, the fool I have been", while he rests his face, sobbing, in his hands in the mids of his fallen empire of productivity, the once caffeinated multitasking geek, he.
That very deperate moment the globalwarming-genie pops in with a puff of black CO2-rich smoke:
"There is a way, my good brave intellectual... But it will be a challenging quest...", while the disoriented geek looks up, licking his thinkgeek caffeine soapbar, bubbling a partial disoriented yet interested:
"Wut?"
ha. (Score:2)
Switch to tea. Sorted.
Re: (Score:2)
About all they have in common is caffeine, wetness and (different degrees of) hotness.
There are more things to enjoy about coffee than just these three things.
Re: (Score:2)
The more reason to switch. Coffee smells and tastes awful.
Do not make generalisations. I hate coffee.
Scare tactics... (Score:3, Insightful)
So they are running out of boogie men - now it's "you'll lose your daily caffeine." Coffee trees enjoy warm climates; what if "global warming" will BENEFIT coffee crops? Most of these guys don't know their asses from their coffee cups, how do they know how an entire species of trees will react to climate change?
That tree survived for millions of years on a planet that faced all kinds of cataclysmic events; I am sure it will be just fine, especially under the protection of mankind.
Re:Scare tactics... (Score:4, Insightful)
Coffee trees enjoy warm climates; what if "global warming" will BENEFIT coffee crops?
Nope, sorry. Coffee trees enjoy a very *specific* type of climate, which is why the growing regions are restricted to specific altitudes, latitudes, rainfall rates, and so forth. Change that environment significantly and the result would be very destructive.
That tree survived for millions of years on a planet that faced all kinds of cataclysmic events
In their current form? Doubtful. All plants either evolve or die off. More likely is that the tree evolved to fit a particular niche that wasn't filled by any other plant. But the current species is now very sensitive to it's growing conditions, as it's exquisitely well adapted to where it grows (as any coffee cultivator will tell you).
Of course, given enough time, species will typically evolve to new pressures (although they may just as often die out... when was the last time you saw a sabre toothed tiger?). Unless, of course, the rate of change is too drastic, and the species is unable to adapt before those pressures become overwhelming (poor poor tigers)...
Re:Scare tactics... (Score:4, Insightful)
Coffee grows in Hawaii, Puerto Rico, Vietnam, Costa Rica, Mexico, Indonesia, Jamaica, Ghana, Ethiopia, and numerous other places around the world. It has its limitations; it's not going to grow in North Dakota. But it's not quite the hothouse flower you make it out to be.
Re: (Score:2)
We'll keep them going as climate changes - they hold too high an economic value for us.
You're absolutely right. We'll definitely protect the domesticated cultivars. But the article is warning about the loss of *wild* varieties. And humans won't bother protecting those as they offer no obvious economic benefit.
Re: (Score:2)
That's a good point, however the modern man has been drinking coffee en masse for what...a hundred or two hundred years? What's the worst that can happen? We stop drinking coffee, we sleep better, work less and are less strung out. That sounds all good to me :)
Re: (Score:2)
Eh I'm a night owl anyway. My day doesn't start until 8pm.
Who gives a Civet shit ... (Score:2)
... because eventually Good Ol' Global Warming (GOGW) will devastate those tropical countries too stupid to take extreme advantage of their natural crop resources to subjugate the world - and eventually it will all be grown in England! Coffee, wine, bananas, Civets, all that 1st world cash-crop crap; hell, even cocaine! And then England can finally return to its rightful place as the oppressor of millions / billions through simple honest restriction of trade! And the US can go f**k itself! (totally unrelate
Re: (Score:2)
"because the US will have all that soya crop and probably more cocaine"
We can grow moobs due to soy-induced endocrine disruption while being as annoying as Billy Mays!
Re: (Score:2)
I think that a US filled with moobs will be not much different than now - ha ha!
Re: (Score:2)
Nifty trolling. But the UK doesn't have enough land to grow enough produce to feed its current population. Without drastic population reduction (unachievable without significant economic strife) we need imports.
Re: (Score:2)
Well if you're going to bring common sense in to it all then I think we _can_ feed ourselves, if we focus on community supported agriculture, reduce the consumption of meat and reduce waste and more sustainable agriculture - I think we could even raise the amount of people supported by a hectre of crop land by maybe 1/8 th with just a change in some agro methods - and maybe replacing 50% of the land resources devoted to farm animals would also increase arable yields
of course my original point would be that
No cause for alarm (Score:4, Insightful)
First off this quote is key
The discoveries showed how little of the world's plant species had been documented, the researchers said.
In other words, they are extrapolating, or in layman's terms pulling numbers of out their ass while capitalizing on the global warming scare which they still believe the public to have fully bought.
Second it is about "wild" plants, meaning not what you tend to find at your supermarket or local bistro.
whats next? Threaten beer?
Might improve coffee flavor? (Score:3, Insightful)
I don't know if younger or less aware drinkers have noticed, but there is a lot of truly horrid southeast Asian farmed coffee that has entered the market. I've been tasting it mixed with more expensive beans to make "morning blends", or used in flavored coffee where its lack of coffee aroma and its aftertaste of lemongrass is concealed. The next time you visit one of those less successful coffee bars, try to get a good whiff of the beans before they're ground to see why they're so much less expensive and so much less successful. The distinction between the richer, more full-scented, quality beans and the weird, always half-priced, Asian sacks of mud, sticks, and a few coffee beans is quite noticeable.
Re: (Score:2)
It's probably not such a big deal for all those people who get their coffee loaded with sugar/chocolate/caramel/cream/etc. Those things are just milkshakes with a caffeine booster.
I usually drink straight espresso though, and there are very few shops that have good enough coffee for that.
Who cares! (Score:2)
I think we are all in agreement here, that as long as the regular coffee bean stays in production, we don't care about the rest of them.
So many more important things then coffee beans have gone extinct due to our hand, or because of our pollution, that we can not seriously worry about this without bursting out laughing.
Are you kidding me!!
Re: (Score:2)
Except there's that little bit of not having the correct soil or location to plant the coffee trees. It's not just about the temperature, it's about the area itself.
There's a reason grapes aren't grown in the desert. For more information [beverageanswers.com].
Then there's the matter of time. Even if you plant the seeds to grow new plants, it takes years for the trees to full develop and produce decent beans.
Re: (Score:2)
TOA refers to wild coffee. You think the wild coffee will magically migrate along with the climate patterns? Leaping over any unsuitable terrain?
Even for farmed coffee, I can foresee significant obstacles to moving production. Will there be enough land at the new latitude? Will whatever is currently grown there also be displaced? If not, where can the coffee go? Is the terrain suitable?