TIME Magazine, the once admired magazine that was considered one of the most informative guides to current and world events, recently made an article that is making people second guess their prestige.
This all started when TIME magazine writer Aryn Baker wrote a story about the rise in popularity of the US spirit Tequila, but instead of admiring the new champion, she declared that this popularity will be “bad for the environment.”
She goes into detail about how this is great for Mexican culture, but bad for the climate since Tequila comes at a “high environmental cost.”
She continues by explaining:
By Mexican law, tequila must be made from blue agave plants grown in one of five Mexican states. Mezcal adds a few more states and agave varietals to the mix, but the succulent plant’s limited growing range means that the Mexican spirits have to be trucked over long distances to get to their ultimate destinations. Tequila’s growing global popularity has also led to a loss in genetic diversity, as manufacturers turn to high-yielding monocrops that require increasing amounts of pesticides. Vodka, on the other hand, can be made anywhere, from a wide range of grains, sugar beets and potatoes.
Subscribe to Florida Jolt Newsletter
The only mention of Tequila being bad for the environment is when she mentioned the genetic diversity that could be lost from the increased production of Tequila. The only other factors that she included that might have an impact on the environment is emissions, to which she admitted that tequila and vodka emissions are on par, and the damage that waste from the production can make, but she mentions that these factors only apply when it is assumed that the waste is not disposed of properly.
The concerns that she applied to genetic diversity can be simply solved by applying proper natural resources management principles, and this can work because the species at risk in this situation can classify as a natural resource. This kind of management has been known to maintain the stability of the ecosystem, prevent further damage to the environment, and avoid over-consumption of natural resources. In the case of the bat and agave species, a plan can be enacted to preserve both species while increasing the production of tequila to meet demand simultaneously.
Instead of offering practical solutions to the problem, Baker instead goes on the route of fear-mongering, to which many people reacting to her post seem unfazed.
One user by Twitter user @tomselliott reacted bluntly, indicating to TIME that they had no interest in learning about their ‘BS’ story.
Another user was just as annoyed, reacting to the story by declaring that climate frauds were trying to ruin fun things.
Anything that makes life better and more enjoyable is 'bad for the environment' according to these climate frauds.
— Goldens Rule (@jamesbranch3) June 13, 2023
Join your fellow patriots and subscribe to our Youtube channel.
Another user decided to turn back TIME’s declaration to make it so TIME was bad for the environment.
@TIME is bad for the environment, yet here you still are.
— Patrick (@ArgentineTea) June 13, 2023
However, one user decided to make this into a moment of realization, with them making a tweet stating how we assumed they were going to stop pushing the climate change narrative on Beef and Pork.
And you thought they would stop at beef and pork.
— BloomStreetBlues (@grenwuld) June 13, 2023
It is unclear if TIME magazine has any plans to correct this story or make any clarifications to try and save their reputation.
Other stories you may want to read:
[VIDEO] Trump Visits Iconic Miami Cafe, Cubans Pray for Him and Sing Happy Birthday
CNN’s Jake Tapper Revulsed by Praying Trump Supporters: ‘I Don’t Need To See Any More Of That’
