By now, any reader of my blog will know that I think most organizations that act as authoritarian ‘guardians’ of our lives are corrupt, using their official positions of power to make sure that they have a great life at our expense for not much mental or physical outlay.
Here is an a example of utter imbecilty. It comes from the UN so that imbecility and corruption are right at home in this announcement.
Hip boots on, folks and let’s wade in.
“Meat should be taxed at the wholesale level to raise the price and deter consumption, says a new report from the UN’s International Research Panel (IRP).”
This will (supposedly) save the environment and prevent global warming.
“I think it is extremely urgent,” said Professor Maarten Hajer of Utrecht University in the Netherlands, lead author of the report. “All of the harmful effects on the environment and on health needs to be priced into food products.”
Hajer and other members of the IRP assert that livestock creates 14.5 percent of the greenhouse gas emissions that contribute to climate change.
Where did they get that number from? I suggest from the same organ system that produces these gases! This is NOT scientific, but it fits the new paradigm that we see in this year of politics on both sides of the Pacific and Atlantic, that you just have to keep saying the same lies over and over again and soon your lies become the ‘new’ truth.
They go on to say: “Rather than taxing the meat at the retail level (in supermarkets and shops), Hajer recommended taxing it at the wholesale level. “We think it’s better to price meats earlier in the chain, it’s easier,” said Hajer.
“The evidence is accumulating that meat, particularly red meat, is just a disaster for the environment,” agrees Rachel Premack, a columnist for The Washington Post’s Wongblog.
“Agriculture today accounts for for one-third of global greenhouse gas emissions that promote global warming,” says Premack, “and half of those agriculture emissions come from livestock.”
Do you all realize that these facts and figures are coming, not from scientific observations, but directly out of the rectums and colons of said ‘scientists.’ Extracting crap out of your butt is a lot easier than diligently doing the research to obtain factual data.
“Agriculture consumes 80 percent of water in the US – most of that being for meat,” says Premack.
Whoa! Hold on here! Before the great herds of bison on the Great Plains in the USA were decimated, the peak number of them was about 80 million. Today there are about 80 million farmed cattle in the US.
Before the advent of Factory Farming the Great Plains were thriving. Ecosystems of wildlife, forests, streams that were prisitne environments were destroyed never to be seen again, to make for for gazillions of acres of ‘amber waves of grain.’
And that is what needs the water.
“… For a kilogram of red meat, you need considerably more water than for plant products.”
A true statement, but it is the careless management of water that leads to its scarcity in various regions. The water on this planet is not disappearing after all. If proper management and conservation and channeling of natural rainfall were implimented with due consideration for the environment AND humans we would not have water shortage crises and we could grow the necessary foods humans need- meat based foods!
The total global grain production vs total meat/poultry production
2.5 BILLION metric tons of grains compared to 257 MILLION metric tons of meats produced in the 2008/2009 interval. Now do the math with water consumption.
That is why the above comparison of water usage for meat production has to be put into the perspective of how much grain production occurs.
btw, where will the great source of protein come from if meat is taxed into oblivion? Not from grains! And what will be the economic consequences of this?
Massive job losses and a massive increase in illnesses due to poor nutrition.
How will we control the diabetes and obesity epidemic?
By increasing grain consumption and lowering meat consumption? Not bloody likely!
“Meanwhile, Denmark is considering a recommendation from its ethics council that all red meats should be taxed,” Premack continues. “The council argued in May that Danes were “ethically obliged” to reduce their consumption to curb greenhouse gas emissions.”
Another example of making unproven statements and taking a moral stance to shame the listener into acquiesing to this bull s**t.
The IRP report, which was released in May, “deserves serious consideration in the United States,” said Premack.
The serious consideration it deserves is to be substituted for the next toilet roll.
Red meat is an important part of the human diet. It’s what we evolved on.
Moreover, the UN cannot and will not admit that meat is essential because the planet cannot produce enought to feed the 7 billions living here- and rising. The only way to reassure the population that we can feed it is to stress the cheap and plentiful, through nutrition poor GRAINS and demonize the essential nutritionally dense MEAT. |
The UN could not possible announce that the food recommendations are based NOT on good physiological principles but rather, based on what can be produced in volume, cheaply and easily. That way the UN can stop the riots that would follow if it told the truth about why it was making its lethal recommendations, and allow people to sink into the abyss of lies they are telling, all the while thinking that their welfare is being taken care of by the ever-loving, all caring UN. Right! Umm… yeah…
Professor Premark is a charlatan.
Why is it that Denmark has become one of the leading champions of the most corrupt science in the world? Someone? Anyone?