LocAle is Frucool?
Interesting article by Ed Gillespie on www.guardian.co.uk yesterday, on the subject of saving money and reducing your carbon footprint by buying local beer from independent breweries.
This, we're told, is "Frucool" - a term coined by Gillespie (a director of London and New York based sustainability communications agency Futerra) to promote / explain / encapsulate the concept of achieving coolness through personal frugality.
In short: it's a piece about the core principles behind CAMRA's LocAle campaign. Albeit one that doesn't once mention LocAle, or CAMRA. But still, it's always good to see someone with a national media platform advocating buying beer from local breweries rather than multinational megacorps.
Thanks to Mark Newton for the heads-up.
Related posts:
I am of the opinion that Mr Gillespie is talking through his hole. Microbrewed beer uses much more water and energy per pint than macrofizz because these are two major corners that profit-hungry multinationals do everything they can to cut.
[permalink for this comment]
The bigger the brewery the more economies of scale can be achieved. Only facts and numbers could tell you if one breweries efficiencies offset their larger carbon footprint or not - I'd be interested to know.
I'd love to think that LocAle is better for the environment, as my two favourites things - beer and football - both completely go against the green ideals I pretend to adhere to. But I fear I might simply be a carbon spewing monster...
[permalink for this comment]
While there's much to be said for promoting local distinctiveness in craft products, the idea that buying local beers will make any significant difference to someone's "carbon footprint" is misplaced.
And it's funny how CAMRA never champion the licence-brewing of international beer brands in the UK, but do proclaim the superiority of "genuine imports".
[permalink for this comment]
Apparently it takes about 150 litres of 'virtual' or 'embedded' water to produce 500ml (near as dammit a pint) of beer. Which sounds like a lot, until you realise that most of it seems to be accounted for by rainfall on barley. And then it pales into insignificance with the 2,400 litres apparently needed to produce a single 150g beefburger...
I think the problem with this sort of 'big, scary numbers' tactic is that it immediately pushes the issue beyond the ability of most people to even come to terms with, never mind feel that they can actually do something about. After all, if it takes so much water to produce one burger, and billions of burgers are sold every day, then turning the tap off when you clean your teeth doesn't feel like much of an achievement. Too much stick, not enough carrot.
[permalink for this comment]