Friday Fungus: Coffee and climate change

This isn't a 'have a go a climate change' post - that the climate changes is a matter of fact, it's the causes of those changes and their impact on us humans that's the subject of debate (and so it should be). Rather it's about being just a little cynical at the tendency to see negative affects on crop production as consequential on climate change - the example being coffee leaf rust:

Science is in no doubt that the changing climate is behind the rust and other problems affecting coffee production worldwide – and that things are likely to deteriorate.

"In many cases, the area suitable for [coffee] production would decrease considerably with increases of temperature of only 2-2.5C," said a leaked draft of a new report from the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change,

The problem is that the pesky science really isn't quite so certain about the reasons for the spread of the nasty little fungus that causes coffee leaf rust:

“While CLR infection risk was elevated in 2008–2011 in coffee-growing regions of Colombia, we found no compelling evidence for a large increase in predicted infection risk over the period in which the CLR outbreak is reported to have been most severe, and no long-term trend in risk from 1990 to 2015,” the study concluded.

“Therefore, we conclude that while weather conditions in 2008–2011 may have slightly increased the predicted risk of CLR infection, long-term climate change is unlikely to have increased disease risk,” it added.

This doesn't detract from the problem that coffee leaf rust causes (although it can be treated - this isn't bananas) but it's a reminder that we're too swift to blame climate change - by which we usually mean global warming - for alterations in ecological balance where humans have sought to manage that environment (we call it farming).

...

"De-growth" or how Greens think drinking less take-out coffee is an economic policy

****

The Greens and their associated useful idiots are a pretty strange bunch. But nothing is stranger than when these good, kind and utterly barmy people start talking about work:

“Why do we work? What do we do with the money we earn?” asks Anna Coote, head of social policy at the New Economics Foundation. “Can we begin to think differently about how much we need—to get out of the fast lane and live life at a more sustainable pace, to do things that are better for the planet, better for ourselves?”

Now I'm not sure how many hours Ms Coote puts in or precisely how much she gets paid to spout this sort of stuff. But I'll guess that her take home pay is a damn sight more that the average pay for the average British worker.

And here lies the problem. I once had a conversation with a hairdresser about his business. He wasn't moaning just making the matter-of-fact observation that, with the shop open long hours, the time spent managing stock and staff plus the time at home in the evening book-keeping, paying bills and planning, his hourly income was below the minimum wage.

If Ms Coote and her sort - comfortably off, employed people - had their way, the cost of basic things like having your hair cut or the windows cleaned would soar. Even worst people would have us believe that somehow we can get out of the fast lane - presumably while they carry on with big salaries and pleasant jobs, the rest of us can lump it on less money.

Such people - when they aren't weeping crocodile tears about 'the poor' - believe that every job is like theirs. The sort who subscribe to Sierra Magazine where they suggest:

"...you move to a smaller house or an apartment, downsize to one or no car, or simply have fewer lattes to-go, a smaller paycheck could reduce consumption overall...” 

Isn't that lovely! We're going to save the planet by having fewer take-out coffees! These people really do live in a bizarre otherland. OK it's not quite living in teepees and growing organic vegetables. In fact it's probably worse because it implies some sort of moral urbanism exists in the green mind - presumably because the core constituency for modern greenery is decidedly urban and hipsterish. It's more about planting herbs in gutters than a return to the land.

Now don't get me wrong, I'm not against down time - all work and no play does make for a dull life. But the idea that there is some sort of Malthusian imperative requiring "de-growth" is ridiculous. If people only want to work 20 hours a week that's fine by me and I hope they enjoy the free time but don't try to pretend that your different lifestyle is somehow not consumption, somehow superior to those folk who like a take-out latte and a shiny new car.

What Ms Coote and her friends fail to appreciate is that by stopping all their consumption they end all those businesses, all those jobs that serve such sinful indulgence. All the baristas, the car salesmen, the brewers and cake makers - gone. And with less money circulating that means lower tax revenues - less money to sweep the streets, teach children and care for Ms Coote's elderly relatives.

If these ideas come to pass we'll be less healthy, less happy and live shorter lives. But we'll have saved the planet!

As I said these people are utterly barmy.

...

A story...

****

I knew a bloke who set up an erboristoria in Ragusa - or rather his wife did and Dave helped. Now, as you'll know, to set up any shop in Italy requires a licence and, in this case, there was a further licence because of the medical nature of a herbalist.

Now in Sicily there are three ways to get a licence.

The first way is to go to the municipio queue up and collect the requisite form, complete the form, attach the requisite payment and submit it to the appropriate official. And wait. And wait. There is a chance that, at some point in the future, that official (or someone on his staff) will not be at important meetings, at lunch or otherwise engaged. And will deign to look at the completed form, apply the stamp of approval and place it in the tray for the licence to be sent. There is even a chance that the licence is actually posted back.

The second way to get a licence is to get your neighbours cousin - the one with the nice car who never seems to work - to get his business associates to speak to the official in question. Shortly after this the license will be issued. However, each Wednesday friends of the cousin call in and politely ask for a small consideration for their efforts. Not paying this consideration is, I believe, foolish.

The third way to secure that license involves the most expensive espresso you've ever bought. You speak to the local mayor and he tells you he can help and can you meet him at his brother's caffetteria perhaps for a late morning caffè. You agree and on arriving you buy the mayor a coffee, hand him the completed form. He drinks the coffee (it being Italy this takes little more than a minute), says he's happy to help and leaves. The brother brings the bill across. Your eyes pop out but you pay secure in the knowledge that tomorrow your licence will arrive.

Quite which option Dave and his wife used I don't know.

It may all be a myth, of course!

....

And I thought it was something else that made you blind...

****

Not coffee:

Drinking more than three cups of coffee a day may increase the risk of vision loss and blindness, according to American research.

Even moderate amounts of the drink make developing the devastating eye condition glaucoma more likely. 

Funnily enough they don't tell you what the increased risk is - maybe it's not all that much? You know featuring the words "not statistically significant":

Compared with participants whose cumalatively updated total caffeine consumption was < 125 mg/day, participants who consumed > 500 mg/day had a trend toward increased risk of EG/EGS that was not statistically significant (RR = 1.43; 95% confidence interval (CI), 0.98-2.08); P trend = 0.06).  

Carry on drinking the coffee folks - it's something else that's making you blind!

...

It had to happen...

****

...the denormalisation of coffee commences:

Researchers found large discrepancies in caffeine levels in espressos, contradicting the widespread belief that retailers follow a uniform set of guidelines.

Medical experts warned that the differences were potentially putting pregnant women at greater risk of miscarriage. They found that café customers were unaware of the wide variations in caffeine levels. 

Watch it grow, folks!

....

Is fair trade a scam?

****

I came across this article in National Post written by the President of Green Beanery, a Canadian social enterprise in the coffee business. It was a real eye-opener, even to someone as sceptical of fair trade as I am:

That fair-trade cup of coffee we savour may not only fail to ease the lot of poor farmers, it may actually help to impoverish them, according to a study out recently from Germany's University of Hohenheim.

The study, which followed hundreds of Nicaraguan coffee farmers over a decade, concluded that farmers producing for the fair-trade market "are more often found below the absolute poverty line than conventional producers.

"Over a period of 10 years, our analysis shows that organic and organic-fair trade farmers have become poorer relative to conventional producers."

The author sets out why he thinks this is the case explaining that the poorest farmers simply can't afford the certification fees and how many see co-operatives (a requirement of fair trade) as taking away property from the farmer. However, it was the degree of corruption and the way in which the fair trade companies manage supply so as to keep fair trade margins higher that was most striking:

In fact, at Green Beanery we have received bags of coffee, some labelled fair trade, some not, grown on the very same farm and identical in every respect. The fair-trade certified farmer himself can't tell which beans will be sold as fair trade and which not -that decision is made by the higher-ups.

Because the fair-trade associations are intent on keeping the price of fair-trade coffee up, they limit the supply of coffee that can be labelled as certified. To the certified farmer's chagrin, most of his fair-trade certified crop could end up being sold as uncertified conventional coffee.

And in this well-intentioned pricefixing game, the fair-trade farmer is the pawn and the joke is on the customer.

It does seem that fair trade has some questions to answer.

....