Tag Archives: Cattle

The Big “Take Away” from COP26 Confab is: Meat

Meat for we but not for thee is our rulers’ message from Glasgow. From Mark E. Jeftovic at bombthrower.com:

The most recent edition of the Crypto Capitalist letter had a section about the COP26 summit that was about to commence in Glasgow:

In 1866 Gideon J. Tucker famously opined “No man’s life liberty or property are safe while the Legislature is in session”. The UN’s 26th Climate Change Conference of the Parties is happening this week and I’m bracing myself for the hysteria and generalized idiocy that will emerge from it.

There already experts who  are clucking that “conspiracy theorists” are promulgating the idea that climate lockdowns are on the way:

“A new report by the Institute for Strategic Dialogue (ISD), a global organisation tackling extremism and polarisation, explains how this conspiracy claims that governments will strip people of their freedoms under the pretext of tackling climate change.”

Although conceding that “It’s important to recognise that fear of government overreach or authoritarianism is not in and of itself extremist” the eggheads at ISD fret that is problematic when “public issues are brought into a conspiratorial framework which implies there are unseen power dynamics at play”.

In the past, when the world’s wealthiest, most influential people, along with the heads-of-state of the most powerful nation states wing into Davos aboard their private jets and then re-emerge chanting “Build Back Better” like zombies, there’s nothing to suspect. Move along.

This week, after over 400 private jets shuttled the world’s movers and shakers into Glasgow for COP26. The big take away coming out of the confab is that it’s all about the methane.

Everybody knew methane is a greenhouse gas, but now it’s a media thing. From here on in it’s going to get political.

Continue reading→

Eat Less Meat and Save the Planet, by Raúl Ilargi Meijer and Dr. D

If the prospect of forced vegetarianism leaves you cold, a Dr. D provides a refreshing perspective on meat consumption. From Dr. D at theautomaticearth.com:

Ilargi: It’s been quite a while since we last heard from Dr. D. He was probably busy growing stuff. But he’s back now, and with something dear to my heart: the craziness of our food production systems. Answers to which are not always what most people think, to put it mildly.

Dr. D:

Eat less meat to save the planet – report (1)
The new diet that could save the planet (2)
What to eat to save the planet: Report urges ‘radical changes’ to world’s diet – less meat, more veggies (3)

These headlines, likely sourced from a recent article from “The Lancet” (4) are a regular feature of our time, in diet, in environmentalism, and in global warming. They are well-researched, sourced by the world’s experts, and put forward with the highest intentions. However, they are also completely wrong – dangerously, ignorantly wrong.

Like most industries, agriculture and food production is a specialty, with its own language and details. I don’t attempt to tell the Lancet how to perform heart surgery, for to do so would be ridiculous, dangerous, outside of my expertise. I wouldn’t tell a geologist how to interpret the magnetic layers of rock, or how oceanographers should properly interpret sea water samples to guide us on fishing or pollution. Yet this is what they do for farmers.

The primary drive of most such articles is that, with so many people, and so much hunger, we find that it takes “2,500 gallons of water, 12 pounds of grain, 35 pounds of topsoil and the energy equivalent of one gallon of gasoline to produce one pound of feedlot beef.” that “64% of US cropland produces livestock feed.” (5) That it takes “20 pounds corn [to make] 1 pound beef.” (6) Or that you can get 15lbs of beef per acre, but 263lbs of soybeans. (7) Also that cattle are the primary reason for deforestation, and a major cause of methane.

From these numbers, it’s simple to see that meat, particularly cattle, is anti-environmental, and even anti-human, and it would be the pinnacle of irresponsibility to encourage or even allow them to be eaten. It is a direct affront to the poor, the hungry, and even other citizens in developed countries like ourselves, even though we may be able to afford such things. Simple. A lock. Slam-dunk. No further research required.

Continue reading→