The fact that Brazil may have an exceptionally good year, only means that it is likely to have a less-exceptional year after that, due to regression to the mean. If the climate does start to negatively impact the more tertiary coffee growing regions, Brazil will not be able to bolster the entire coffee demand.
Also: I can only assume that growing overall population = higher demand for coffee
Isn't that a Monte Carlo fallacy? One outcome in a sequence of tests does not mean that others are more likely in the future. If you flip a coin and get 10 heads in a row, your likelihood of getting a tails on the next flip (assuming a perfectly-balanced coin) is still 50%. Brazil's good year may be another case of climate change for all we know, and could very well persist for awhile; or, you might be right and next year things will balance out again. We don't know either way yet.
That isn't to say that we shouldn't be concerned regardless; you're correct in your observation that having all our figurative, coffee-flavored eggs in one basket - even if that basket is the size of Brazil - is rarely a good idea.
Even more conventional greenhouses, however, should help somewhat. I reckon the point of the parent commenter is less about the vertical nature of such farms and more about the climate controllability of such farms.
I also tried to find a sensible place to point that out to the BBC, but nothing was obviously (to me) the right place.
Even if you do manage to report "something", it takes them weeks to respond, if at all.
I rarely consume BBC products and services these days, and after the Scottish Independence referendum I no longer trust them as a competent news source. They're a bit of a running joke to many folks in Scotland, especially news and affairs output from Pacific Quay (BBC Scotland) [0][1].
I mean, there's been a shift recently for nicotine and the market for e-cigs, I'm sure we can somehow find a way to do the same for caffeine.
Coffee isn't the only natural source of caffeine, and yes, it can also be made synthetically.
I am of the understanding that we currently produce liquid nicotine from tobacco leaves, and use the liquid nicotine for electronic cigarettes.
We certainly can already produce caffeine independently of producing coffee, and while that may be a major reason for coffee production, i doubt many coffee drinkers would be satiated with a caffeine pill every morning instead of their cup of coffee.
Kind of akin to seeing the wine grapes are going away and saying, well we can produce alcohol independently of wine - its true, but it wont satisfy wine lovers.
Or, the culture just adjusts to a different caffeine-infused hot drink.
Honestly though, I'd be less upset about coffee going away as a source of caffeine than it going away as a drink. It's so wonderfully delicious that synthetic caffeine just wouldn't really cut it for me.
Does this mean the end of soda as well?
[1] http://www.ift.org/~/media/Knowledge%20Center/Publications/B...
It's a funny thought for me as I only drink decaf.
A 25% rise in price over 35 years qualifies as a crisis now?
[1]: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Betteridge%27s_law_of_headline...
I don't know how people do links and stuff on hacker news
