Climate change is coming for your G&T! Global warming could change the taste of gin, scientists warn
If there's one thing the Brits take seriously, it's their gin and tonic.
It requires a precise blend of the spirit, mixer, lime wedge and – of course – ice.
But the subtle fusion of flavours is at risk, experts have warned - with climate change to blame.
Juniper berries are what give gin its distinct piney, woody and citrus-y notes.
Now, scientists have found that volatile weather patterns – made more likely by climate breakdown – could make the botanical sweeter and spicier in some years and less intense during others.
Experts from Heriot-Watt University's International Centre for Brewing and Distilling (ICBD) warned changing weather might be altering the flavour compounds in the berries.
Like grapes, the climate and environment that junipers grow in can influence their intensity and dominant flavours.
'A wet harvest year can reduce the total volatile compounds in juniper by about 12 per cent compared to a dry year,' Matthew Pauley, an assistant professor at the ICBD told The Guardian.
'This has direct implications for the sensory characteristics that make gin taste like gin.'
For their research, scientists distilled juniper berries from different regions across Europe including Albania, Bosnia, Macedonia, Montenegro, Serbia, Kosovo and Italy.
Analysis of the resulting spirits revealed berries from each region had distinct chemical profiles which gave them slightly different tastes.
For example, gin from Albania has a higher abundance of orange and citrus compounds, while gin from Bosnia might have a more woody, pine-y taste.
The team distilled juniper berries from varying harvest years and discovered the amount of rainfall in a given year could significantly impact the flavour of the berries.
Wetter weather meant longer drying periods for the berries were needed, which changed the abundance of chemicals within them.
They found the abundance of Alpha-humulene, which contributes to the berry's spicy and peppery notes, drops during rainy years.
Beta-Caryophyllene, which provides citrus, floral and sweet attributes to juniper, also declines.
And levels of Beta-myrcene, which helps provide a 'minty' taste to the berries, also decreases during wet harvest years.
The countries involved in the study, which are located around southern and southeastern Europe, are expected to be significantly impacted by climate change.
Experts predict this area of Europe will experience increased heatwaves and droughts – along with periods of intense rainfall that can vary drastically from year-to-year.
The study showed that across all six countries the total harvest rainfall in 2017 was 1,218mm, which dropped to 774mm the following year.
If this pattern continues then hotter, drier years could produce juniper berries that are especially sweet and spicy, while wetter seasons could results in a product that has markedly less intense flavour.
Professor Annie Hill, the study's supervisor, said: 'For distillers, this means the flavour profile can shift depending on harvest conditions.
'For a multibillion-pound industry, which is increasingly focused on consistency and quality for its discerning customers, this represents a risk.'
The study, published in the Journal of the Institute of Brewing, reads: 'Juniper berries and other plant botanicals are used in the production of beverages and contribute signature flavour and aroma.
'Inconsistent or inferior quality of botanicals is a concern and result in consumer dissatisfaction, and reduced sales.
'This work will be of interest to distillers, suppliers of botanicals and juniper farmers, and will inform drying regimes consequent on climate change.'
The team said that the most likely outcome of the impact of climate change would be that gin distillers would choose to harvest their juniper berries from a different area.
In a similar way to champagne companies buying vinewards in the south of England, previously non-suitable areas for growing juniper berries may be considered.
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
BBC News
an hour ago
- BBC News
Three years left to limit warming to 1.5C, leading scientists warn
EPA The Earth could be doomed to breach the symbolic 1.5C warming limit in as little as three years at current levels of carbon dioxide emissions. That's the stark warning from more than 60 of the world's leading climate scientists in the most up-to-date assessment of the state of global warming. Nearly 200 countries agreed to try to limit global temperature rises to 1.5C above levels of the late 1800s in a landmark agreement in 2015, with the aim of avoiding some of the worst impacts of climate change. But countries have continued to burn record amounts of coal, oil and gas and chop down carbon-rich forests - leaving that international goal in peril. Climate change has already worsened many weather extremes - such as the UK's 40C heat in July 2022 - and has rapidly raised global sea levels, threatening coastal communities. "Things are all moving in the wrong direction," said lead author Prof Piers Forster, director of the Priestley Centre for Climate Futures at the University of Leeds. "We're seeing some unprecedented changes and we're also seeing the heating of the Earth and sea-level rise accelerating as well." These changes "have been predicted for some time and we can directly place them back to the very high level of emissions", he added. At the beginning of 2020, scientists estimated that humanity could only emit 500 billion more tonnes of carbon dioxide (CO2) - the most important planet-warming gas - for a 50% chance of keeping warming to 1.5C. But by the start of 2025 this so-called "carbon budget" had shrunk to 130 billion tonnes, according to the new study. That reduction is largely due to continued record emissions of CO2 and other planet-warming greenhouse gases like methane, but also improvements in the scientific estimates. If global CO2 emissions stay at their current highs of about 40 billion tonnes a year, 130 billion tonnes gives the world roughly three years until that carbon budget is exhausted. This could commit the world to breaching the target set by the Paris agreement, the researchers say, though the planet would probably not pass 1.5C of human-caused warming until a few years later. Last year was the first on record when global average air temperatures were more than 1.5C above those of the late 1800s. A single 12-month period isn't considered a breach of the Paris agreement, however, with the record heat of 2024 given an extra boost by natural weather patterns. But human-caused warming was by far the main reason for last year's high temperatures, reaching 1.36C above pre-industrial levels, the researchers estimate. This current rate of warming is about 0.27C per decade – much faster than anything in the geological record. And if emissions stay high, the planet is on track to reach 1.5C of warming on that metric around the year 2030. After this point, long-term warming could, in theory, be brought back down by sucking large quantities of CO2 back out of the atmosphere. But the authors urge caution on relying on these ambitious technologies serving as a get-out-of-jail card. "For larger exceedance [of 1.5C], it becomes less likely that removals [of CO2] will perfectly reverse the warming caused by today's emissions," warned Joeri Rogelj, professor of climate science and policy at Imperial College London. 'Every fraction of warming' matters The study is filled with striking statistics highlighting the magnitude of the climate change that has already happened. Perhaps the most notable is the rate at which extra heat is accumulating in the Earth's climate system, known as "Earth's energy imbalance" in scientific jargon. Over the past decade or so, this rate of heating has been more than double that of the 1970s and 1980s and an estimated 25% higher than the late 2000s and 2010s. "That's a really large number, a very worrying number" over such a short period, said Dr Matthew Palmer of the UK Met Office, and associate professor at the University of Bristol. The recent uptick is fundamentally due to greenhouse gas emissions, but a reduction in the cooling effect from small particles called aerosols has also played a role. This extra energy has to go somewhere. Some goes into warming the land, raising air temperatures, and melting the world's ice. But about 90% of the excess heat is taken up by the oceans. That not only means disruption to marine life but also higher sea levels: warmer ocean waters take up more space, in addition to the extra water that melting glaciers are adding to our seas. The rate of global sea-level rise has doubled since the 1990s, raising the risks of flooding for millions of people living in coastal areas worldwide. PA Media While this all paints a bleak picture, the authors note that the rate of emissions increases appears to be slowing as clean technologies are rolled out. They argue that "rapid and stringent" emissions cuts are more important than ever. The Paris target is based on very strong scientific evidence that the impacts of climate change would be far greater at 2C of warming than at 1.5C. That has often been oversimplified as meaning below 1.5C of warming is "safe" and above 1.5C "dangerous". In reality, every extra bit of warming increases the severity of many weather extremes, ice melt and sea-level rise. "Reductions in emissions over the next decade can critically change the rate of warming," said Prof Rogelj. "Every fraction of warming that we can avoid will result in less harm and less suffering of particularly poor and vulnerable populations and less challenges for our societies to live the lives that we desire," he added. Sign up for our Future Earth newsletter to keep up with the latest climate and environment stories with the BBC's Justin Rowlatt. Outside the UK? Sign up to our international newsletter here.
The Independent
an hour ago
- The Independent
Want to plant trees to offset fossil fuels? You'd need all of North and Central America, study finds
Planting trees has plenty of benefits, but this popular carbon-removal method alone can't possibly counteract the planet-warming emissions caused by the world's largest fossil-fuel companies. To do that, trees would have to cover the entire land mass of North and Central America, according to a study out Thursday. Many respected climate scientists and institutions say removing carbon emissions — not just reducing them — is essential to tackling climate change. And trees remove carbon simply by "breathing." But crunching the numbers, researchers found that the trees' collective ability to remove carbon through photosynthesis can't stand up to the potential emissions from the fossil fuel reserves of the 200 largest oil, gas and coal fuel companies — there's not enough available land on Earth to feasibly accomplish that. And even if there were, if those 200 companies had to pay for planting all those trees, it would cost $10.8 trillion, more than their entire combined market valuation of $7.01 trillion. The researchers also determined that the companies would be in the red if they were responsible for the social costs of the carbon in their reserves, which scientists compute around $185 per metric ton of carbon dioxide. 'The general public maybe understand offsetting to be a sort of magic eraser, and that's just not where we're at,' said Nina Friggens, a research fellow at the University of Exeter who co-authored the paper published in Communications Earth & Environment, a Nature Portfolio journal. Carbon offsetting essentially means investing in tree planting or other environmental projects to attempt to compensate for carbon emissions. Trees are one of the cheapest ways to do this because they naturally suck up planet-warming carbon. Fossil fuel corporations, along with other companies and institutions, have promoted tree-planting as key part of carbon offset programs in recent years. For example, TotalEnergies, a global energy company, said in a statement that it is 'investing heavily in carbon capture and storage (CCS) and nature-based solutions (NBS) projects.' To do their calculations, the researchers looked at the 200 largest holders of fossil fuel reserves — the fuel that companies promise shareholders they can extract in the future — and calculated how much carbon dioxide would be released if this fuel is burned. The researchers also focused solely on tree planting because the expense and technological development needed for other forms of carbon capture are still mostly cost-prohibitive. Forestry expert Éliane Ubalijoro, who was not involved with the research, called the study 'elegant.' It 'gives people a sense of proportion around carbon,' said Ubalijoro, CEO of CIFOR-ICRAF, an international forestry research center. But she cautioned against oversimplifying the equation by looking only at carbon capture, noting that tree planting done right can foster food security and biodiversity and protect communities from natural disasters. The paper effectively makes the point that it's financially impossible to offset enough carbon to compensate for future fossil fuel burning, said Daphne Yin, director of land policy at Carbon180, where her team advocates for U.S. policy support for land-based carbon removal. And the idea that companies would ever be required to account for the downstream emissions from the fossil fuel they extract is a 'fantasy,' she said. The idea of planting trees is appealing to the public and to politicians because it's tangible — people can literally see the carbon being incorporated into branches and leaves as a tree grows, Friggens said. But she says other methods shouldn't be overlooked — microbes underground store carbon too, but they can't be seen. And it's a physically and mathematically inescapable fact, illustrated in part by this study, that there's no getting around it — we have to stop emitting carbon, said Jonathan Foley, the executive director of Project Drawdown, who also was not part of the study. Carbon emissions are like an overflowing bathtub, he says: Before you start cleaning up, you have to turn off the water. 'Trees are the sponges and the mops we use to clean up the mess," he said. "But if the taps are still running and the water's pouring out over the edges of your bathtub, destroying your bathroom and your home, maybe you've got to learn to turn off the taps too.' ___ Follow Melina Walling on X @MelinaWalling and Bluesky @ ___ The Associated Press' climate and environmental coverage receives financial support from multiple private foundations. AP is solely responsible for all content. Find AP's standards for working with philanthropies, a list of supporters and funded coverage areas at
Daily Mail
2 hours ago
- Daily Mail
It's too hot to go to school! Climate change making it harder for pupils to learn, dire assessment says
Climate change is making it harder for pupils to learn as they wilt in the heat, Department for Education research says. An official briefing says learning can be 'very difficult' due to the 'one or two days' per year when indoor temperatures reach 35°C. And even on just averagely warm days, the heat could be causing pupils to currently lose seven days of learning per year, it said. However, critics yesterday said hot days should not mean whole sessions of learning written off as 'lost'. They pointed out children in places such as Africa and India make learning a priority in much more prolonged heated conditions, often without air conditioning. Chris McGovern, of the Campaign for Real Education, said: 'Children and teachers need to toughen up a bit and get on with it. 'Millions of pupils around the world place the importance of education above personal comfort. 'Going soft on our kids is no way to build the resilience they need to survive in the modern world.' The document was released today as temperatures soared over 30C in some parts of the country. Staff at the Department are now working on ways to make new school buildings resilient to apocalyptic scenarios caused by climate change. The document said global surface temperature levels are already 1.2°C higher than pre-industrial levels, causing one to two days annually of 'extreme heat'. This tally could rise to three days by 2050 and eight days by 2100, if climate change causes the predicted global temperature rises of 2C and 4C respectively. And it said 'more subtle changes in temperature' on 'generally warmer days' could also 'affect the ability to learn'. Taken together, it means seven days are potentially being lost currently, rising to eight days in 2050 and 12 days in 2100. The document says: 'In the longer term, without the implementation of any adaptation measures, students could potentially lose up to 12 days of learning per year on average, as result of generally warmer temperatures and not just from extreme heat.' The document also warned of the threat of flooding and water shortages to schools, which were also listed as 'climate risks'. It said all new school buildings under Labour will be 'designed to be climate resilient'.
