I debated whether this post would go on the "Views" or the "Brews" side of the site. 

Only once before have I put a post that dealt with politics under "Brews". That was when the government shutdown was impacting reviews of applications for new beer offerings, which of course hit the small, craft brewers harder. I didn't go into deep political analysis or try to assign blame, rant about any one side in particular. Just laid out the issue and asked people who cared about beer and the microbrews to contact their Congress people to please get this resolved. People's dreams and livelihoods were being impacted after all.

This time though I will err on the side of caution and put this post on the "Views" side of the site, the overtly political side. Even though it shouldn't be. This deals with climate and science so it shouldn't be the subject of political tugs-of-war but we know how that's been going.

So anyway it seems that the drought in California may impact the beer industry sooner rather than later. Many breweries, such as Lagunitas, rely on water from rivers such as the Russian River. The rivers and the reservoirs, lakes, etc that feed them are running dry after years of severe drought. Breweries may need to look for alternative sites to switch production, or even switch to using groundwater which would greatly influence the taste of the products. Lagunitas is large enough to be able to pursue some alternatives. Other smaller producers will not be so lucky.

Of course the article I was reading, "California's Water Crisis Is Becoming A Beer Crisis" by Jeff Spross at thinkprogress.org, doesn't stop with just California. The article points out how what is happening to California is very much in line with predictions made by climate scientists concerning climate change. It also points to other changes impacting breweries due to climate change. It notes that barley and hops production have been impacted, and will likely decrease due to shifting climate patterns. Experts consider the quality of European hops in general to have been declining since the 1990's as temperatures in general rise. A study in the Czech Republic determined that the quality of the highly prized Saaz hops, the hops that give the famed Pilsener beers their distinctive quality, has deteriorated steadily since 1954 due to rising temperatures.

By all means if you want to believe global warming is a hoax, that is your right. You want to believe we can take tons of carbon deposited over millenia and locked away beneath the earth, and burn through them in about a 200 year period with little or no consequences, you can believe that too. You are even free to vote for people who believe the same thing, even if most of their money is coming from the fossil fuel industry. 

But now it's personal. Sure your ignorance may help doom many species on this planet, including our own, put half of Florida under water in 50 or so years, cause huge dislocations and unrest among populations (which the reality-based Pentagon and CIA are already planning on happening), lead to increasingly extreme weather conditions, but negatively impact the quantity and quality of beer available? Now you've gone too far.  

One way I like to get a rise out of people when getting into a political discussion between those not of like mind is to assert that 50 years from now Jimmy Carter will be hailed as the best American President of the era encompassing the second half of the 20th century and beginning of the 21st century. Fans of Ronald Reagan and George W. Bush find that statement especially galling. 
Now I am quick to add some caveats. I am a partisan Democrat but I do like to be reality based. I don't actually believe Carter was a great President. He really was not all that effective despite coming into office post-Watergate with huge Democratic majorities in both houses of Congress. Anyone who has read Ted Kennedy's autobiography is familiar with some of the issues Carter had with the Beltway Democrats and why he failed to get along with them to get a lot accomplished.
There is one area though where Carter really shone. And that area becomes increasingly apparent and important with each passing day. His biggest success was in the area of energy policy.
It is the one period of my life where I believe our country actually had a comprehensive energy policy. Much of this was a reaction to the OPEC oil embargo of 1973 and 1974. The embargo was in retaliation for America's support of Israel in the Yom Kippur War of 1973 between Israel and some of its neighbors, primarily Egypt and Syria. The embargo lead to shortages, long gas lines, price spikes. Jimmy Carter, however, saw it as a wake-up call and opportunity for the nation.
In his plan there was an emphasis to conserve energy complete with inducements and tax credits for private individuals and businesses. Homes and businesses were insulated. Scrubbers were put into smokestacks to recover lost energy and reduce pollution. Gas efficiency standards were increased for vehicles. 
The other side of the policy was to spur domestic development of alternative, sustainable sources of energy. There was a recognition that domestic oil production had peaked and would never achieve the output of the past. There was also a recognition that reliance on fossil fuels carried steep costs in terms of the environment, public health and national security. Relying on oil meant being dependent on foreign oil no matter how much you might "drill, baby, drill". 
The government provided seed money for research projects for solar, wind and geothermal energy. News stories abounded of the efforts and trials, some big, some small, in these areas. Solar panels were even installed on the roof of the White House. 
All of this of course was abruptly halted once Ronald Reagan defeated Carter and assumed the Presidency. Saint Ronnie worshiped the free market and stated that the wisdom of the free market would determine our energy policy, not bureaucrats in Washington. It didn't hurt that OPEC began dropping its prices around this time so that the average person felt less urgency around supporting programs to find alternate fuels. 
The tax incentives for business and individuals to conserve energy were discontinued. The seed money for research and development into alternative energy sources were cut off or severely cut back. Reagan even made a point of removing the solar panels from the White House roof.
This is a classic example of the limits of the free market as a tool for setting policy. Obviously the best long-term interest of the country was to wean ourselves off of fossil fuels and develop home-grown clean renewable domestic sources. However, fossil fuels had been the primary energy source for decades, heck close to a hundred years. An entire infrastructure had been developed and was already in place for the production and distribution of fossil fuels whether it be coal, oil or natural gas. On a per unit cost basis there was no comparison at that point, fossil fuels were cheaper and easier. The wisdom of the free market sent us merrily on the path to hell.
So where are we at today? President Obama with his budget and recovery package of 2009 attempted to boost America's position in research and development of renewable energy sources, an area where we are quickly being outpaced by the Germans and Chinese. So almost 30 years after the last big effort at developing alternatives to fossil fuels we see a renewed effort. A lost generation.
Meanwhile all around us we see the impacts of climate change: droughts in some areas, massive flooding in others, disappearing Arctic ice and tundra, disappearing beaches, increased severity of storms, and the list goes on. Water is becoming an ever more precious commodity. And this is only 2013. 
And with Syria in the news lately and the possibility of the United States becoming further entangled in yet another Middle East conflict, we wonder why we are always being dragged into this arena. If we didn't have such a thirst for oil would we be as concerned about Iraq or Iran or Syria or Middle East stability? 
So when the next generation is fighting wars over water, wondering why everyone in the Middle East seems to want to attack us, dealing with the fallout from a radically changing environment and its impacts on agriculture and public health, they may someday open their history books to a discussion of the Carter Administration and sit there dumbstruck. They will at first be amazed and then an anger will well up inside them. 
"You fools! You had the answer! The blueprint was there and in place! And you tore it up and went back to burning fossil fuels like drunken sailors on shore leave! And this is what you left us! Thanks for nothing!"
And we'll see how those generations will rate Jimmy Carter versus Ronald Reagan.