Last week we had a people in New Zealand saying we need edible pets. This week we have England’s “premier climatologist” saying we need to give up meat. You first, me Lord. However, this sort of tactic risks marginalization of his cause. Poll numbers are already falling. What’s really needed here is “steak watch”. Since as we’ve seen with many prominent people who give worldly advice, they often don’t follow it, we need some British paparazzi at restaurants and public banquets to see if Lord Stern follows his own advice. When in Japan, maybe someone can offer him the new Windows 7 Whopper to try. Why no “OSX Snow Leopard” Burger? – Anthony
From the London Times: Climate chief Lord Stern: give up meat to save the planet
by Robin Pagnamenta, Energy Editor
People will need to turn vegetarian if the world is to conquer climate change, according to a leading authority on global warming.
In an
interview with The Times, Lord Stern of Brentford said: “Meat is a wasteful use of water and creates a lot of greenhouse gases. It puts enormous pressure on the world’s resources. A vegetarian diet is better.”
Direct emissions of methane from cows and pigs is a significant source of greenhouse gases. Methane is 23 times more powerful than carbon dioxide as a global warming gas.
Lord Stern, the author of the influential 2006 Stern Review on the cost of tackling global warming, said that a successful deal at the Climate Change Conference in Copenhagen in December would lead to soaring costs for meat and other foods that generate large quantities of greenhouse gases.
He predicted that people’s attitudes would evolve until meat eating became unacceptable. “I think it’s important that people think about what they are doing and that includes what they are eating,” he said. “I am 61 now and attitudes towards drinking and driving have changed radically since I was a student. People change their notion of what is responsible. They will increasingly ask about the carbon content of their food.”
Lord Stern, a former chief economist of the World Bank and now I. G. Patel Professor of Economics at the London School of Economics, warned that British taxpayers would need to contribute about £3 billion a year by 2015 to help poor countries to cope with the inevitable impact of climate change.
He also issued a clear message to President Obama that he must attend the meeting in Copenhagen in person in order for an effective deal to be reached. US leadership, he said, was “desperately needed” to secure a deal.
Read the rest of the article at the London Times: Climate chief Lord Stern: give up meat to save the planet
Like this:
Like Loading...
Related
“They [young people] will increasingly ask about the carbon content of their food.”
Well, last time I checked, your Lordship, all food can be reduced to amino acids, fatty acids and carbohydrates, all of which contain molecules of carbon in some form. In that case, if you think you can eat without consuming carbon, lots of luck.
On the outrageous scale this hits a perfect 10 out of 10.
Give the man a prize…
Step right up, tell what you really intend to do — if you get the power.
It would cut the cost of health care quite a bit though 🙂
Posted at Science Museum “Prove It” site.
The planet is cooling, not warming. CO2 is not a pollutant. Carbon trading is a tax. In two years, AGW will be acknowledged as a delusion and its supporters will be vilified, if they are lucky. The climate always changes. It’s historical!
http://www.nothingtodowithco2.com/pdf/AGW_presentation_ILMCD.pdf
http://www.climateaudit.org/
As for that loony Lord Stern of Brentford, he’s well past his sell by date.
http://wattsupwiththat.com/2009/10/27/climate-craziness-of-the-week-2-steak-watch/
Read on.
http://www.climatedepot.com/
http://climaterealists.com/index.php
http://iceagenow.com/
BTW, On Friday The Englishman noted that voting was about four to one against. Derek Reynolds in correspondence noted that by Sunday morning it was approaching six to one against, which corresponds to your bending author’s recollection. Quite suddenly the votes have become almost even. Far be it for us to suggest that there is anything of an ichthyoid malodour about this, or that it is in any way comparable to any recent election in an Islamic republic, but Sunday night is a very unusual time for such intense activity on the internet. If such movement occurred in a publicly quoted share price the regulatory authorities would be sniffing around in no uncertain manner.
http://www.numberwatch.co.uk/2009%20October.htm#odd
As I asserted, you warmists are on a hiding to nothing.
To restore your faith in the sanity of the human race, go to the Times web page and look at the comments – 631 comments last time I looked. Some of them are quite amusing. Click on ‘most recommended’ to get the best ones.
His learned lordship was on the radio this morning, falsely claiming that the number of ‘deniers’ was decreasing, even though the interviewer had earlier referred to the latest poll showing increasing disbelief.
But aren’t we supposed to be eating our pets?
Doesn’t this guy realize that our pets are made of meat?
Lord Stern a climatologist? I think not — and probably not all that hot as an economist either.
As for his prescription regarding meat consumption, I wouldn’t be surprised if, in his mind, it is more like, “Meat is bad for ye and thee, but not for me.”
Little meat is eaten in India (a former colony of yours Lord Stern) and many cattle roam the country side. Will India be exempt from your scheme?
FWIW, World Bank policies (bad loans to dictators, raising taxes to repay the loans and thus preventing the poor from raising any capital to start businesses and improve their lives) derived in part no doubt from Lord Stern’s economic advice have demonstrably hurt third world countries. What gives him any credibility to promote more disaster?
FWIW-2, there actually may be problems from deforestation to create pastureland and feedlot pollution that should be addressed.
Apparently, his Lordship is not a strict vegetarian.
Reporter: I understand your Lordship is a vegetarian.
His Lordship: Indeed I am.
Reporter: Could you give us some food tips, I mean how does being on a vegetarian diet work?
His Lordship: Certainly, suppose you were to have a nice sirloin steak.
Reporter: Yes?
His Lordship: You select a sample from the vegetable kingdon. I’m a parsely man myself.
Reporter: Yes:
His Lordship: And you lay the sprig of parsley on the steak.
Reporter: I see. What else can you do?
His Lordship: Say I’m having a nice roast grouse.
Reporter: Grouse is nice.
His Lordship: Well, prepare your grouse, and add a sprig of parsely.
Reporter: Go on.
His Lordship: Venison. . .
Reporter: You add a sprig of parsely?
His Lordship: That’s it exactly.
Reporter: I can’t wait to try it.
At the Society for Marine Mammalogy Conference earlier this month in Quebec, a paper was presented posing the question: Are [large] whales a net sink or source of carbon dioxide? The paper was complete with photos of farting whales and what happens to the carcasses. The conclusion was that whales are indeed a net sink for carbon. We would assume, then, that Lord Stern of Brentford should at once work to stop the Japanese whale hunt and other whale and dolphin kills in Norway, Iceland, and elsewhere. After stopping the hunts of wild “ocean bison,” he could then shift to the domesticated terrestrial bovines.
Brilliant! Hypocrisy is surely an Achilles heel of tyrants.
Let’s see, eating meat wastes water food resources. But in the NY Times, its found so does solar energy generation:
http://greeninc.blogs.nytimes.com/2009/10/27/water-use-by-solar-projects-intensifies/
And don’t get me started on food to fuel bio-fuels but even the second generation biofuels from cellulosic stock doesn’t look so good:
http://blogs.nature.com/climatefeedback/2009/10/biofuel_woes_1.html
So going green is only supposed to cost a postage stamp a day but in the name of green I should:
1. Have fewer kids
2. Eat no meat
3. Use less toilet paper (preferably in a waterless toilet)
4. Live in a different house
5. Stop driving a take public transportation
6. Limit my flying (unless I’m on an eco-pilgrimage)
7. Send any energy intensive jobs to developing countries so they can use their quota of greenhouse gases to prosper.
Sounds like the good old days, well the olden days at least.
“He also issued a clear message to President Obama that he must attend the meeting in Copenhagen in person in order for an effective deal to be reached. US leadership, he said, was “desperately needed” to secure a deal.”
Why? Once again, the only reason Obama needs to attend, or more specifically, for the US to agree to an outrageous treaty, is so that money can be transferred through a special-interest filtration system (SIFS: aka. Government).
If this actually had anything to do with reduction of ‘pollutants’, every committed sovereign nation can do whatever is needed today. That is, why cannot Britain ‘take the lead’ and show us how successful Co2 reduction policies and technological instruments can make everyone’s life better.
Is there anywhere in the world that has achieved, or is on the way to achieving CO2 reduction goals? If not, why not? If so, then please show us how it’s done, the investment curve, the desired result and the actual result.
By the way, this is funny:
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/earth/earthnews/6425738/Science-Museums-climate-change-poll-backfires.html
I liked the comment on the Times…
Don’t think of it as meat,
think of it as recycled grass.
DaveE.
It almost sounds like something The Onion would publish.
Perry (09:55:31) :
“As I asserted, you warmists are on a hiding to nothing.”
‘ “On a hiding to nothing”
Meaning
To be faced with a situation which is pointless, as a successful outcome is impossible. This is usually expressed in terms of a sporting contest in which one of two outcomes is foreseen, either a hiding or nothing. ‘ from http://www.phrases.org.uk/meanings/on-a-hiding-to-nothing.html
I avoided meat for 20 years and ate mostly bread, pasta, potatoes, rice, veggies, and cake. With a growing waistline and low energy levels, I opted to try a low carb diet of mostly meat, fish, and veggies; I’ve never felt better.
Lord Stern is not only not a climatologist, he is also not a nutritionist. Funny how those two fields seem to have a lot in common!
There’s a real issue here about whether meat is man’s natural diet, and as such, how should we balance the health of our species against that of other species on the planet?
One point to note.
As you indicate a little way into the article, Lord Stern is not “England’s premier climatologist”, nor indeed any kind of climatologist. He’s an economist.
Rather reminds me of the old joke.
A surgeon, and architect and an economist were travelling together, and fell to discussing which of them had the oldest profession.
The surgeon says “I think I can claim priority there. If you refer to the book of Genesis, it tells how God took one of Adam’s ribs to create Eve. So God was in fact the first surgeon.”
Then the architect says “Ah, but before he did that he created the heaven and the earth from chaos. That was the work of an architect.”
And the economist says “And who created chaos ?”
Really GORIC !!
Entry Word: gore
Function: verb
Meaning: to penetrate or hold (something) with a pointed object running with the bulls in Pamplona, Spain, may sound like fun, but the bulls have been known to gore runners who get too close
http://www.aolsvc.merriam-webster.aol.com/thesaurus/gore
Cattle are a machine to convert inedible plants into edible meat. Cattle would have to be replaced with more farmland, more oil-burning tractors, and more chemical fertilizer. I don’t think that is what he wanted.
Steak for me but not for you, peasants.
People DO need to give up meat, but not because of any climate nonsense, but because of the land and resources required to provide for animals. If everyone went veggie then there would be MUCH more land available and much less use of resources like water and energy. In the future everyone WILL be almost vegetarian. Meat will be an expensive luxury. Admittedly that time is quite a way off, but it WILL come.
This have been obviously written by vegetarians, but….consider this:
-Leaves are green
-Green is chlorophyl
-Chlorophyl is made from CO2 + water + Sun
-No CO2 = No Chlorophyl = No Green = No Leaves = No Vegetarian Lord.
-May your Lordship rest in green-peace.
Interesting. The Science Museum’s “Prove It” poll now has a ratio of 3 to 10.
To be more precise:
All this twaddle talk about saving the planet by eating my dog or whatever has made me hungry.
Time to go to my local and excellent Steak House and get the Keg Size Prime Rib Dinner.
Rare, a little bit of outside cut for the flavor, lots of horseradish.
Lord Stern is described by the Times as “a leading authority on global warming”. Yet another falsehood. He’s just an economist, and from looking at the Stern Report, a poor economist to boot.
Whoops ! Hands Up ! I’m afraid that I’m the one that’s responsible for global warming !! Not only do I drive a 4×4 SUV, and an Aston Martin, I own three dogs, and I’m also an ardent meat eater !!
Where do I hand myself in??
Turning people into sheep gets a new meaning now. Be-e-e–ee-e!
One thing is true, there is a huge reserve in agricultural land since meat production requires a lot more water and area than for example beans. Thats why I do not buy the lack-of-food-because-overpopulation scare; we can always eat a bit less meat and get plenty of beans instead. More, we will fart more greenhouse gases!
I know we used to have to give up meat on Fridays, but this is ridiculous.
Dictated diet anyone?
My boss had a name for this type of thinking: He called it “Tired of Living”.
Which creates more methane.
70 million cattle or 70 million buffalo? There were up to 70 million buffalo 200 years ago in the US.
How did their methane affect the climate?
cow on my farm consumes 30 kg of grass per day or 11,000 kg per year. Does anyone know how much it is in carbon?
Hey speaking of crazies with agendas, the science museum reset the opt out count!
http://www.sciencemuseum.org.uk/proveit.aspx
Did anyone get a screen of the count before the reset?
Just wondering how many world class atheletes are true vegetarians.
Stefan, Of course meat is mans natural diet. We were eating before we grew crops.
Let me be the first to say it:
“Global warming, all sizzle – no steak.”
You can have my T-Bone when you pry it from my cold, dead hands. 😆
Barry Foster,
what if meat is our natural diet? Besides, according to some schools of thought, even agriculture itself is unsustainable due to the heavy burden it places on the soil. If you take a long view, the human species has only been using agriculture for 10,000 years, and that is what allowed our numbers to start growing beyond what nature could sustain through simple hunter gathering. What did hunters eat? Meat. It was grains that allowed us to cheat the system, and now people are advocating we rely even more on grains?
Consider, all that cereal, bread, pasta, and rice, can be substituted comfortably for one good portion of meat a day. If you go on a meat-only diet you’ll be surprised how little you can eat without feeling hungry nor getting ill. Carby rich cereals actually increase appetite. If you don’t believe me, please try it sometime.
“Why no “OSX Snow Leopard” Burger? – Anthony”
Maybe they tried, but 10.6 patties just didn’t work out so well.
As many have already pointed, this twit Stern, (an economist)I will not dignify him with his title, is not a “Climate Chief” any more than Dr Rajendra Puchauri (PhD in Production Engineering & Economics) as head of the Idiotic Panel on Climate Change! How do we know this guy is any good in the first place. The rule used to be if you were crap at something, promote them up to where they can do little harm! As I have said before, this is just marxist socialist intellectual elitism, DAISNAID! (Do as I say not as I do)! What is the upshot of all this AGW clap-trap, food will cost more, the wealthy MSIEs will be the few who can afford it, whilst we plebs will rot on whatever fungus they feed us on! Mushroom syndrome me thinks! Kept in the dark & fed………….Bad Science!
Have to laugh at the scientific illiteracy of asking about the carbon content of food. Might as well worry about the hydrogen content of the water we drink. Well, I suppose this is what you get when you go round introducing a political economist as a climate expert.
Incidentally, I’ve been trying the Count Me Out option on the Science (ha!) Museum poll for several days and so far yet to receive the email necessary to confirm the vote, and I notice it’s crept up from overwhelmingly Count Out to something around 60:40. Of course, Big Eco is so reliable and trustworthy when it comes to disclosure and data sharing that I’m sure I can trust that nothing dodgy is going on with the poll…. right?
It’s funny how most of the ‘solutions’ to global warming are things liberals have wanted for a long time.
Forgive the O/T but the corrupted UK Science Museum climate change poll was reset to zero at about 17.15 GMT today – 45 minutes ago. this time you have to click on a link to have your vote validated. Has Lihard or anybody else views on whether this poll has integrity? Current score 4 counted in 31 counted out.
A reminder the link is http://www.sciencemuseum.org.uk/proveit.aspx
Regards
S
Meat is a byproduct. You cannot produce milk cheese or eggs without producing meat.
“Lord Stern, the author of the influential 2006 Stern Review on the cost of tackling global warming, said that a successful deal at the Climate Change Conference in Copenhagen in December would lead to soaring costs for meat and other foods that generate large quantities of greenhouse gases.”
The only time I am concerned about the carbon content of my steak is when the cook burns it. At most there should only be a slight searing where the meat met the grille, but never, never, never should the whole meat look like charcoal.
“US leadership, he said, was “desperately needed” to secure a deal.” In other words, bring your nation’s VISA, MASTERCARD, and AMEX and leave it with us.
AGW hype is the equivalent of somber discussions about angels dancing on pin heads.
Can we stop calling Lord Stern an economist please. His career and title stems from his contribution to banking. He is a banker – cockney rhyming slang may be inferred…
@AnonyMoose
What’s going on? The count was 5000 – 10,000 votes last time I looked, the great majority against. Then we had the shenanigans where the score suddenly became nearly equal Sunday night. Now there’s only 43 votes: 4 in, 39 out.
Apparently they reset the totals? “It’s data, you know what to do with that.”
Reply: They have apparently started over with a double opt in security to confirm votes. They got a programming to make it work. Time to vote for real everybody. ~ ctm
It’s funny how most of the ’solutions’ to global warming are things liberals have wanted for a long time.
That has not gone unnoticed. Like a continual tapping, all in the same place.
Apparently they are looking to stooge Obama to save the day and win the Olympics.
It just keeps getting nuttier and nuttier … I wonder if we were back in the 1800s would be having to go out and slaughter the tens of millions of buffaloes?
By now most are recognizing AGW it’s a UN scam to get funding for a huge UN global government…
I once ate meat, like a carnivore, until by good fortune I got away from eating it. It all comes down to a few simple points. One, compassion and love for nature and all its creatures. This is no simplistic fuzzy emotional thing, but derives from common sense, and a recognition that a we are all spiritual beings . Living from our highest nature, not from the sheer animal, selfish part that for many is the norm. This is a fact!!!!
Next point, if we stopped a eating meat, we will be far far healthier. This is a fact also..
Next point, global warming will ease considerably. I like so many here on this forum, believe the debate as put forth by such as Al gore, is extremely naive and at best a con trick by the established elite. a way of manipulation. However, the ecosystem can never be in full balance until we learn to live in a way that is balanced. This includes stopping the pollutants we pour into the atmosphere and biosphere. Carbon dioxide is a poison like anything else if it is in excess of what nature intended. This is a philosophic point however.
Last point, out of living as compassionate as opposed to selfish beings which we are now, we will be much happier, nature instead of being something we use for our convenience will be something that is therapeutic instead. Something we live peacefully within, not something we are in contention with . And it takes far far less food taken from a field say, used directly for our own consumption than being diverted through the gut if an animal first. This alone is common sense.
The shame of such an unscientific idea being front page news of The Times
“People change their notion of what is responsible. They will increasingly ask about the carbon content of their food.”
“A successful deal in Copenhagen in December would lead to soaring costs for meat and other foods.”
I wish Vice President Joe Biden were about making statements like these. Where is he when you need him? 🙂
“That has not gone unnoticed.”
Evan,
You are my favorite heathen.
Yep, full blown socialist tyranny seems the goal with well meaning technocrats running the show. A nanny state.
But since the technocrats are mal-educated, I would call it a Ninny Nanny State.
Telegraph gets it right
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/earth/environment/climatechange/6445930/Lord-Stern-is-wrong-giving-up-meat-is-no-way-to-save-the-planet.html
Lord Stern – failed economist of a failed economy led by a failed government. Bankrupt financially and morally.
There is a class action against Applebys Restaurants regarding their claims for low calorie diet items on the menu. One of the class plaintiffs is named Anthony Watts. Any relation?
nick-ynysmon,
Spirituality is acceptance. Life is transformation. We all die. Each death is energy transformed. Both creation and destruction are Lila’s play.
Sure, we don’t want to take too much, but neither do we want to block the flow of energy. Do you deny a cat its meat? Is a polar bear “unspiritual” because it clubs baby seals?
It is the play of Nature.
Stefan:
The revelation that Polar Bears are tool users really changes my perspective.
A great quote from the comments in The Times story:
Really insightful!
I recall a documentary on Science Channel on the evolution of intelligence. One of the theories presented was that the ability to digest animal fats and proteins gave primates in general and home erectus in particular, the necessary metabolic energy to increase brain size and activity.
My thanks to Lord Stern for his personal contribution of evidence supporting the theory.
There is however a lot of truth in Stern’s view. It is true that if we really do want to reduce carbon emissions to around 20% of their present levels, one of the things we will have to do is totally reform the way we eat. We will have to go to more or less organic agriculture, which means that fertiliser will come from compost, we will use green manure, animals will be grass fed and graze not corn and soy fed in stalls. We will do a lot more hand weeding and hoeing. We may even go back to horse drawn transport. Chemical agriculture will have to stop totally. It will be back to 1870 or so in food production. Use of tractors will be limited, cars and planes will be abolished.
And we really will eat less meat. And pay more for it.
It’s true, one legitimate role for the government is “to provide for the common defense,” so the Adminsitration, with the help of the United Nations, is going to have to defend you against beef, milk, cheese, and your own car.
“While Congress considers taxing auto and industrial pollution, a U.N. report fingers another guilty party — cows.”
Hey! Is this why the barbecue summer was cancelled in the UK this year?
“Blood and belonging”
“And there he was in the gallery of the House of Commons, quite obviously standing up and shouting over politicians as he called for the passage of NDP’s Bill C-311, which would set tough greenhouse-gas emission targets for Canada in advance of the Copenhagen climate-change summit in December.”
“Joe Cressy says he is not an NDP activist nor was he the organizer of the “flash mob” that disrupted Question Period yesterday.
And it now appears that the bloody-faced protester, Jeh Custer, who appeared on CBC News Network’s Power & Politics with Evan Solomon could have faked his injury.
The CBC has posted before and after pictures of Mr. Custer, showing that he left the Parliament buildings with a clear complexion but by the time he arrived at the CBC studios he had a bloody face. Canwest’s David Akin, meanwhile, had a good view of the arrest.
Some protest.
Let’s start with Mr. Cressy. He is troubled today by the coverage that is pointing to him as the leader of the climate-change demonstration that saw six young people banned from Parliament Hill for one year.”
http://www.theglobeandmail.com/blogs/bureau-blog/blood-and-belonging/article1340419/
…-
Previous link here:
“‘Flash mobster’ exposed
3. Protester unplugged. After the drama had subsided on Parliament Hill yesterday, there were some questions to be answered. Who exactly were the young protesters disrupting Question Period with shouted demands of action on climate change? Thanks to the magic of YouTube there are some answers. One of the protesters, who appeared to be an organizer, looks exactly like one of the delegates to the NDP convention in Halifax last August. In the video, the protester is talking outside of Centre Block, explaining the purpose of the “flash mob” was to show support for a clean energy future. And then there is a clip of a young man, who looks much the same, at the microphone at the NDP convention asking a question about the tar sands. He also looks a lot like the protester, Joe Cressy, who was interviewed on CBC Newsworld five years ago and was one of the student spokespersons for the anti-George W. Bush protests that took place when the former U.S. president came to Ottawa.”
http://www.theglobeandmail.com/blogs/bureau-blog/flash-mobster-exposed/article1339767/
(NDP = Canada’s official socialists)
Back2Bat
Yes (but they are not necessarily all that well meaning).
I wrote a piece for the Register that deals with the Stern Review:
http://www.theregister.co.uk/2008/09/22/global_warming_mitigation_vs_adaptation/
Soylent Green for all!
Kevin S (11:03:13) :
The only time I am concerned about the carbon content of my steak is when the cook burns it. At most there should only be a slight searing where the meat met the grille, but never, never, never should the whole meat look like charcoal.
I disagree. The steak should first be exposed, both sides, directly to flame. This sears the outside, sealing in the juices, but will result in a slightly blackened appearance. Next, the steak should be exposed to lower heat until the meat inside is approximately body temperature. (i.e. warm and red.) The steak is now ready for human consumption.
First of all, Methane has not been increasing.
(There has been a very small increase over the past two years – after it appeared Methane had stabilized – but the amount is so small it will not have any greenhouse impact).
Second, pasture land is a CO2 sink – each 3 acres of pasture will sink 1 ton of CO2 per year.
On the whole, cattle are contributing Zero to global warming.
So, I am always amazed that the pro-AGW set knows so little about the science they have supposedly settled.
Lord Stearn is a most irresponsible loon. He lives under protection of Britain’s “Super Loon”, Big Ear Charles, who once declared that if he could make a return to another life, he would like to be a deadly viral disease that would cause humanity to go extinct.
His kids love it to dress up as Nazi’s, all of which is an indicator how life is going to look like in Britain if the country, due to carbon rationing, crashes down into the Medieval Ages again.
It makes me sad because I know how great this country and it’s people have been in their darkest hour when they were at war with the Nazi’s and Japan.
It’s unbelievable how deep their political establishment has fallen.
“I am 61 now and attitudes towards drinking and driving have changed radically since I was a student. People change their notion of what is responsible. They will increasingly ask about the carbon content of their food.”
That’s quite a leap there from one subject to a completely unrelated one.
When I get behind the wheel after gobbling down a thick, juicy steak, I tend not to run over pedestrians. On the other hand, running over pedestrians would cut down on carbon emissions… perhaps that is the responsible thing to do to save the polar bears.
OT Science museum
# 6 counted in so far
# 62 counted out
It seems they have reset the counter, maybe with better safeguards?
Anyway, I feel free to vote again since my vote disappeared, full name and e-mail
“We have sent you a confirmation message to make sure that we only count real people. Please check your inbox and follow the link to complete the process. In the meantime, there’s still lots more you can do…
Mike Nicholson (10:39:24) :
Just give me some of your money & you’re forgiven. 😉
Like your taste in cars BTW.
DaveE.
paulo arruda (10:45:18) :
Considering grass as D-Glucose (out of which cellulose is made), where Carbon is the 40%, then it is 11000 x 0.4 = 4400 kg.
Science museum count has reverted. It is now:
* 5430 counted in so far
* 6527 counted out so far
Lets get to the science. Who exactly, said methane is 23 times more effective GHG than CO2 ?. Looking at graphs of emissivity of methane and CO2 reveals that at the same optical paths methane emissivity is 1/4 of CO2. Emissivity equates to absorptivity at thermal equilibrium. Confirm the premise first, not the looney stuff that results.
The problem with everyone going towards a vegetarian or vegan diet is that a great deal of land is not suitable for crops, but can produce enough grass etc to support animals. Indeed, there are many parts of the world where the only way to live off the land is to send a goat out to feed off whatever it can, and then eat the goat.
Sorry DaveE ! All the money has gone running the two cars and feeding the three dogs !! Thanks for the reply though
Stefan (10:49:17) :
what if meat is our natural diet? Besides, according to some schools of thought, even agriculture itself is unsustainable due to the heavy burden it places on the soil.
I don’t know the schools you are referring to, but (pardon the pun) this is a load of tripe. Ever heard of the RUSLE equation?
michel (11:31:03) :
There is however a lot of truth in Stern’s view. It is true that if we really do want to reduce carbon emissions to around 20% of their present levels, one of the things we will have to do is totally reform the way we eat. We will have to go to more or less organic agriculture, which means that fertiliser will come from compost, we will use green manure, animals will be grass fed and graze not corn and soy fed in stalls. We will do a lot more hand weeding and hoeing. We may even go back to horse drawn transport. Chemical agriculture will have to stop totally. It will be back to 1870 or so in food production. Use of tractors will be limited, cars and planes will be abolished.
And agriculture production will be reduced 90%. How long will our 30 day world reserves last then?
Phillip Bratby (11:59:53) :
Science museum count has reverted. It is now:
* 5430 counted in so far
* 6527 counted out so far
Ah well. I did get an e-mail that asked me to confirm my vote sent it in, and submitted another comment.
I do not want to vote again, will somebody post if they vote and if they get a confirmation message?
“desperately needed” is the closing message from Lord Stern to President Obama regarding the Copenhagen summit.
eating pets but not lamb cutlets seems quite desperate indeed.
Global warming has joined religion as an excuse for hair-shirted lunatics to impose their puritanical beliefs on the rest of us.
Religious prosylitizers I can stand, I tell them politely I’m not interested in their ideas and they go somewhere else while the warming zealots are roaring for laws that curb just about everything that I find fun, useful, or civilizing.
Anthony, I know you are interested in this stuff just like I am. Enjoy the blurb!
Flexible solar power modules unveiled
http://www.tgdaily.com/content/view/44438/178/
Stefan. Our ‘natural’ diet is a mix. It would therefore be ‘unnatural’ to be either a carnivore or a herbivore. I don’t need to “try it sometime” as I was a omnivore. However, I’ve been veggie for 26 years now and enjoy perfect health. I’m not saying it would give you that too, as I believe health is primarily genetic, I’m just saying it works for me. I don’t care if someone eats meat as I’m not a veggie campaigner – I just do what I want, and hope you do too. I was merely pointing out that in the future pretty much everyone WILL be veggie because of land use/space. It will happen, it’s just a matter of time:
http://www.worldometers.info/
We’re all wasting our time. I’m currently watching that idiot Ed Miliband on the (UK) Channel 4 news, there is no shifting his (or others, for that matter) headlong dash to Copenhagen, and he is saying that even without agreement they will stick to the UK government plans to reduce emissions. The would-be future prime minister David Cameron looks as if he may be of a similar mindset.
No news programme seems willing to entertain any commentators or scientists who believe that the carbon and climate change rubbish is just that. The alternative science just doesn’t stand a chance, and no amount of popular public opinion is going to make the slightest bit of difference as governmental minds have been made up, and the leaders have brainwashed themselves into this sad, depressing situation – they appear to spout this stuff like robots.
How can you possibly fight a “religion” such as this? They don’t listen to reason, they ignore the public.
We seem to be on a hiding to nothing, and once this spiral has started, there’ll be no stopping it, until we are all compliant, vegetarian, immobile, living in caves or mud huts with smokey fires, and fighting each other (and fighting off disease and malnutrition as well).
Surely SOMEONE with leadership qualities and charisma can stand up for the truth. Can’t they?
The misanthropes
Steve: “I’m hungry. Kill the cat and put him in the microwave”
Thelma: “Are you sure? WE’ve got chicken wings tonight.”
Steve: “Absolutely not lamb! Lord Stern Says it causes global warming, whilst eating pets makes it better again. I should really put you in the microwave, as the LSE said the way to stop global warming is to cut the population so there are fewer emitters”
Thelma: Steve! How could you say that?”
Steve : “Don’t take it personally. I’ll fry myself later”
anna v (12:16:47) :
I voted & got the email to confirm but that was before they reverted the count to a higher level again.
The new level of votes is probably because the OUT vote was running at 10:1 against before they reverted. LOL
DaveE.
Bring on the methane, Hitler had uncontrollable flatulence according to Toland from his vegetarian diet.
I voted again; with a real email address, again. This time I got a confirmation mail. Their numbers were running about 6 to 1, literally.
The recent history of consensuses is pretty bad .. global cooling in 1975, high-fat foods will kill you in 1988, WMD in Iraq in 2003, and today, AGW (Anthropogenic Global Warming). Everyone knew they were true, but no one could actually prove it conclusively. There was, and still is, no hard science to back up these claims, but everyone knows, or at least knew, them to be true.
I wrote a paper when I was in university in the 70’s about using plant proteins in combination to make a complete protein. This was because then we were told that the planet was to small to house all of us and raise animals for food. The diet is possible but the amount of food needed would be double what we eat now. This was based on “Diet for a Small Planet” , if anyone remembers that book. Now 40 years later and double the amount of people on the planet we have the room to still use animals for food but we cannot because it causes global warming? Ideas just get recycled.
How can you possibly fight a “religion” such as this? expat in France
Pray for cold weather is my suggestion and keep fighting.
“The horse is prepared for the day of battle,
But victory belongs to the LORD.” Proverbs 21:31
“Religious prosylitizers I can stand, I tell them politely I’m not interested in their ideas and they go somewhere else while the warming zealots are roaring for laws that curb just about everything that I find fun, useful, or civilizing.” Cholered Person
Bingo! Some people have no faith in the power of truth and logic so they resort to force instead.
Quote: “Meat is a wasteful use of water”
Sure enough. All that water used in “growing meat” just disappears from existence. Sure enough.
Curiouser and curiouser, as Alice said. Whatever drugs are these people taking, I do wonder?
Barry Foster (10:33:36) :
People DO need to give up meat, but not because of any climate nonsense, but because of the land and resources required to provide for animals. If everyone went veggie then there would be MUCH more land available and much less use of resources like water and energy. In the future everyone WILL be almost vegetarian. Meat will be an expensive luxury. Admittedly that time is quite a way off, but it WILL come.
The earliest vegetarian I have come across was Pythagoras (6th century BC). It seems to be taking a long time for it to catch on! Incidentally, his reasons (sic) for being so were just the same nonsense we get today. If you are ‘kind’ to nature, what you get back will not change.
Where I live, one side of the hills (Malverns) is crops, the other side almost all livestock. The poorer land is not suitable for crops.
(insert tongue in cheek)
I sometimes wonder if there is a case for compulsory euthanasia for vegetarians; they won’t face life as it is, so there is the alternative.
(remove tongue from cheek)
I am trying to give up romantic idealism, though.
“Tom in Florida (10:47:37) : Just wondering how many world class atheletes are true vegetarians.”
And the lumberjacks? How many of those are vegetarians.
I’m a lumberjack and I’m okay
I sleep all night and I work all day
I cut down trees, I eat my lunch
I go to the lavat’ry
On Wednesdays I go shopping
And have buttered scones for tea
I cut down trees, I skip and jump
I love to press wild flow’rs
I put on women’s clothing
And hang around in bars
I cut down trees, I wear high heels
Suspendies and a bra
I wish I’d been a girlie
Just like my dear papa
**OK, I’ll go to my room now . . .**
Barry, some would say our natural diet is 85% carnivore (something to do with our brains being larger and our guts being smaller than comparable apes), but that’s a relatively minor quibble. The bit I’d really question is the prediction that the future will necessarily constrain us to being “vegetarians”. The future can surprise us. Perhaps it will be “in vitro meat” ?
For an alternative view from the UK try The Daily Mash:
“Meanwhile a group of environmental charities has already commissioned a series of television adverts designed to educate the public about how meat-eating kills polar bears, especially if you then intend to eat them like some kind of Eskimo.”
http://www.thedailymash.co.uk/news/environment/meat%11eaters-to-finally-be-treated-like-smokers-200910272171/
P.S. The Science Museum still thinks I have an invalid e-mail address and refuses to register my vote for the new count.
@John Lish, In the modern Cockney rhyming slang the correct term for someone like this twerp Stern is “a Merchant”. This is short for Merchant Banker; the latter word is the one which rhymes with the correct epithet.
Apples and pears – stairs
Ruby Murray – curry
Frankie Vaughn – porn
Jodrell Bank – an act of onanism.
Person of Choler (12:23:50) :
Global warming has joined religion as an excuse for hair-shirted lunatics to impose their puritanical beliefs on the rest of us.
Religious prosylitizers I can stand, I tell them politely I’m not interested in their ideas and they go somewhere else while the warming zealots are roaring for laws that curb just about everything that I find fun, useful, or civilizing.
I reckon the zealots adopt a lifestyle which they see as superior, but which they begin to realise, puts them at a serious disadvantage. Because they are never wrong, and need to prove their superioroty to themselves, their only solution is to compel everyone else to live as they do.
Perhaps we will have to tell the greenie zealots we’re not interested either.
“Yes (but they are not necessarily all that well meaning).” Evan
Evan, I was impressed and humbled by your article. Good show! When one’s logic leads to mass murder or suffering it is time to reconsider.
Yes, I was wrong to say “well meaning.” I sinned. I apologize. Some are cold blooded killers by proxie.
I believe that it takes other people’s money to do significant damage to the world which is why I advocate ethical banking and money creation.
Stefan. Yes, ‘in vitro’ meat is a distinct possibility. As I say, I think it simply will BE that there won’t be farmland left to grow crops for animal feed. That argument could even be made right now. I’m sure the future holds lots of surprises, but barring a major catastrophe, it isn’t going to be a surprise to find we’ve run out of farmland to feed a massive population! To me, population problems far outweigh any threat from climate.
Not sure about the carni/herbi mix. I once heard that we don’t have the teeth for a proper carnivore’s diet.
ShrNfr, Hitler wasn’t a vegetarian. Just another myth.
Thanks.
One has to consider consequences of policy and that includes the fact that some policies prevent other policies.
November 11, 1941 Hitler said, “One may regret living at a period when it’s impossible to form an idea of the shape the world of the future will assume. But there’s one thing I can predict to eaters of meat: the world of the future will be vegetarian.”
This has reached farther than craziness (crazy people are usually intelligent) to
foolishness (fools are usually naive, candid and gentle), and farther still to the most oligophrenic stupidity (a case better for the asylum and certainly not for Copenhagen).
LarryOldtimer. You haven’t thought that one through.
Where I live in the west country the only crops are grass and other crops which are only fit to feed to sheep and cattle. No sheep and cattle means no farmers. No farmers means the land rapidly reverts to scrub. Then the land supports nobody. Perhaps that is the ultimate objective.
Hi Anthony,
Here is analysis I did on water consumption and corn and beef in response to the same ridiculous water consumption claims by Discover Magazine. Basically, the greenies are inflating the lb. beef/ gal. water ration by a minimum of 4x.
Dear Editor,
Discover Magazine claims that it takes 108 gallons of water to produce 1 lb of corn. The actual amount is appears to be ~50% less.
Iowa is at the center of the corn belt. Iowa receives of average 19.39 in of rain during the corn growing season. The corn belt is characterized by very consistent rain fall during the growing season. 19.39 inches of rain equals 526K gallons of water per acre. Iowa yields 182 bushels per acre at 56 pounds per bushel = 10,192 lbs per acre. Doing the basic math yields 51 gallons of water being required per pound of corn during the growing season. A few inches of winter rain water contributes to soil moisture during the growing season. The winter water may boost the total corn water usage by 20% to 61 gallons per lb. Nebraska being drier than Iowa uses less water than this as their total average rainfall is annually is only 19 in (winter + growing season), and still yields 162 bushels per acre. Please note: these figures are only for non-irrigated farm land.
http://www.nebraskacorn.org/cornmerch/usdareports.htm (Source for Nebraska corn yield)
http://www.ces.purdue.edu/extmedia/NCH/NCH-40.html (Source for Iowa corn yield, rain fall and misc. comments on effects of rain fall)
So where did the author get their numbers from: apparently he or she has used rain fall from the extreme eastern edge of the corn belt (Ohio) where rain fall is highest and where they have to put tiles in the corn field to drain the fields and reduce excess moisture. They then included both growing season and 100% of off season rainfall and assumed no run off or evaporation. Given that Iowa is not a desert and rivers continue even during the growing season, one can safely assume that corn does not use 100% of the available water even during the growing season. However, my calculations although much lower than the inflated numbers of Discover Magazine still assume 100% of available water usage during the growing season.
Discover Magazine claims that it takes 1,857 gallons of water to produce 1 lb of meat.
Assume beef cattle at 1200 lbs dressed to 800lbs at 14 months of age. It takes ~5.9lbs of feed to yield one pound of cattle weight gain (Source Gray and Stallknecht 1988). If we use the Discover inflated number of 108 gallons of water for 1 lb of corn, we then get 8.85 lbs of corn = 1.5 lbs of beef cattle = 1 lbs of dressed beef = 955 gallons of water or 2x less than the Discover beef lb / gal claim. However, we already know that it does not take 108 gallons to grow a lb of corn (see above) – therefore, it takes ~ 451 gallons of water (of my likely inflated number) per lb of dressed beef that fed on Iowa corn or 4.1x less than the Discover claim.
(Source University of Minnesota, Department of Animal Science: 1200 lbs yields 800lbs of dressed meat at 14 months of age)
So where did the author get their numbers for beef from: I hazard a guess that the author used Kobe Beef as the standard as this brand of cattle is allowed to grow older to between 26 to 32 months of age. The $100/lb Kobe beef is not what is being served at McDonald’s or offered at Safeway.
I would appreciate seeing the author’s calculations.
All the best,
John McDonald
I love animals…
They taste great!
“Up to 20,000 delegates from 192 countries are due to attend the UN conference in the Danish capital.” (The Times article on Lord Stern’s interview)
That works out at an average of 100 delegates a country. No wonder there’s an awful lot of people who want the Copenhagen Conference to go ahead. Lots of wining and dining at somebody else’s expense. But meat will, of course, be off the menus.
Not OT but …: There have been famous vegetarians, who also loved dogs and pets, among these several who caused millions of deaths, as AH.
Why?, because vegeterianism, the same as other “isms” is usually the manifestation of fanaticism.
You people need to face up to some basic facts, Cows produce methane gas which is 23 TIMES MORE POWERFUL than CO2 as a greenhouse gas. You cannot deny it.
Personally I’m doing my part by eating them as fast as I can. I find that I cannot resist the urge to eat to eat some plants, but I feel guilty about it, plants remove CO2 from the atmosphere.
Controlling Climate Change is very simple; we just need to give people like Lord Stern absolute control over every portion of our life.
After all, you do want to “SAVE THE PLANET”?
Eric Hoffer, worked as migrant laborer and then a dock hand, before he wrote the classic “The True Believer” a study of mass movements.
From Wikipedia
“Hoffer argues that mass movements such as fascism and communism spread by promising a glorious future. To be successful, these mass movements need the adherents to be willing to sacrifice themselves and others for the future goals. (my emphasis)
To do so, mass movements need to devalue both the past and the present. Mass movements appeal to frustrated people who are dissatisfied with their current state, but are capable of a strong belief in the future. As well, mass movements appeal to people who want to escape a flawed self by creating an imaginary self and joining a collective whole.” (end quote)
The Climate Change fanatics fit this model to a tee.
“You must honor your intellectuals and reward them, but never, never give them power. They will try to make you love what you hate and hate what you love.” (Hoffer)
And I still plan to eat a Whopper when I’m in the mood.
The Prove It site would not accept my email address, kept saying it was invalid. I tracked it down to having a full stop in the bit before the @ sign (name.surname@domin.co.uk). I used my Hotmail address in the end and that worked fine.
Poor programming.
Lord Stern
NOT a climate scientist.
NOT any kind of scientist.
An economist – in other words an ‘expert’ in taxing people. (Although, in fairness, many other economists were quick to rubbish his ‘Report’.)
And apparently a vegetarian (if only ‘part time’)
Of course, Hitler & Himmler were also eco-fascist vegetarians.
For myself, I just enjoyed a nice juicy rare steak.
I haven’t eaten any meat for a month. But that is only because I can’t afford any. Once I come up with a job (which is difficult in New York City) I intend to wax carnivorous.
“But there’s one thing I can predict to eaters of meat: the world of the future will be vegetarian.” Hitler via Mike Lorrey
Logical but wrong, is my assertion. BTW, is there a move to rehabilitate Hitler? I keep hearing reasonable sounding quotes from him. What a strange world.
I don’t know about you guys but when I eat vegetarian dishes I tend to produce much more methane that a regular meal. Also, I need to eat more of it since it is generally low in calories and high in fibers.
Adolfo Giurfa (and maybe Mike Lorrey)
Hitler wasn’t a vegetarian. It doesn’t matter how many times you say it, it doesn’t make it any more true. Please desist, or I’ll start a rumour that the WTC was blown up by the CIA. It will become so popular that idiots who can’t do a little research before saying something will think it’s true!
That’s ironic, the internet seems to have eaten my post! I wonder if it will be regurgitated?
Anyway, I said:
Adolfo Giurfa (and maybe Mike Lorrey)
Hitler wasn’t a vegetarian. It doesn’t matter how many times you say it, it doesn’t make it any more true. Please desist, or I’ll start a rumour that the CIA blew up the WTC.
Barry, your prediction will fail as all predictions do that don’t (and can’t) see the future technological advances that will come. However, you can understand why your prediction will fail. All similar predictions in the past have failed.
We have vast expanses of real estate available. The Oceans are one area we have minimally developed. Others just don’t happen to be on this planet. However, we will eventually start transforming them starting with the Moon (it has water) and going forward.
Another thing so many of people seem to forget is this world has, and always will be, managed by one of nature’s premier rules. Survival of the fittest. Those who think they can live in harmony with some fantasy world, are simply fantasizing. Any society that tries it will sooner or later be conquered by those grounded in reality.
“I haven’t eaten any meat for a month. But that is only because I can’t afford any. “ Evan
Evan, buddy. Long, water only fasts cure many stubborn ailments and do wonders for the mind. Pythagoras did 40 day fasts and required his grad students to do them too. A prefast vegetarian diet is often recommended. I recommend Fasting: The Ultimate Diet by Dr. Allan Cott.
I consider fasting as survival of the fittest at the cellular level. Here is a good link too: http://www.gaianstudies.org/articles4.htm
If you need a steak though, let me know and I’ll send you a check after Nov 3.
Another moron in a position of responsibility.
I’m doing my part to rid the world of those evil cows. I eat them at every chance. Mostly steaks, and BBQ ribs and brisket, but also the occasional pot roast. I don’t eat hamburgers much anymore, although I did so years ago.
I urge everyone to follow my example.
p.s. here’s a link to a favorite BBQ house in Texas:
http://www.lulingcitymarket.com/
and another, this one in Austin, Texas:
http://www.saltlickbbq.com/
Richard M (13:58:51) :
He, nevertheless, was a green. See:
http://www.spunk.org/texts/places/germany/sp001630/peter.html
On bovine flatulance –
My bet’s on the Buffalo – Much bigger beast…
(I just know there’s a pony in here – I can smell it.)
On Soylent Green,
I’m working on becoming tough, stringy and gamey –
Mike
Well the Count Me Out total is still ahead.
I click the link
Climate Science > How do we know humans are responsible?
and the answer they give is:
“The climate change we are experiencing cannot be explained by natural causes.”
I was hoping for a little more information?
Lord Stern is not a climatologist. He is a complete banker.
Now I understand the term “sheepeople”.
Barry Foster … read the records.
I read the Goebbels’ diaries and it is clear that Hitler was a vegetarian.
I don’t think that changes the health benefits of being a knowledgeable vegetarian, but to conclude it somehow makes you “superior” is nonsense.
The diaries of both Goebbels and Bormann clearly prove this. Also, he hated any cruelty to animals (excluding his human victims).
You can be a monster, but also have good personal habits. We don’t despise Hitler and his henchmen for their dietary choices. Saints and Sinners and Madman can be vegetarians.
Wikipedia
In a diary entry dated April 26, 1942, Joseph Goebbels described Hitler as a committed vegetarian, writing,
“An extended chapter of our talk was devoted by the Führer to the vegetarian question. He believes more than ever that meat-eating is harmful to humanity. Of course he knows that during the war we cannot completely upset our food system. After the war, however, he intends to tackle this problem also.
Maybe he is right. Certainly the arguments that he adduces in favor of his standpoint are very compelling.”[12]
Martin Bormann, who as head of the Party Chancellery (and private secretary to Hitler) is considered by most historians to have been the second most powerful Nazi official in Germany, built Hitler a large greenhouse at Berchtesgaden in order to keep him supplied with fresh fruit and vegetables throughout the war.
Personal photographs of Bormann’s children tending the greenhouse survive, and by 2005 its foundations were among the only ruins associated with the Nazi leadership still visible in the area.
Finally, in his personal life Hitler showed anti-meat tendencies. Hitler disapproved of cosmetics since they contained animal by-products. He frequently teased his mistress Eva Braun about her habit of wearing makeup.[8] In his post-war reminiscence The Enigma of Hitler, Belgian SS General, and friend of Hitler’s, Léon Degrelle wrote:
“He could not bear to eat meat, because it meant the death of a living creature. He refused to have so much as a rabbit or a trout sacrificed to provide his food. He would allow only eggs on his table, because egg-laying meant that the hen had been spared rather than killed. (13) end Wikipedia
Question- who do you believe; those who personally knew Hitler and his habits or those today who don’t want him be a vegetarian?
Hell, I don’t want him to be part of the human species, but I have to accept that fact.
Come on people, aren’t you all getting sick of this yet? I mean it’s like being an observer inside a lunatic asylum: the behaviors are funny/strange and interesting in a way, but eventually you just want to give someone a slap and tell them to stop being so silly. I realise a CRB check for any future job I might apply for in a lunatic asylum will probably fail now……..
@John W.
To expose a good steak directly to the flames to “seal in the juices” is a fallacy. Why does the steak continue to sizzle? Because moisture is still escaping from the meat.
The correct way to cook a good steak, a whole tenderloin for instance, is first to oil the meat, then to dress it with black pepper and a goodly sprinkle of English mustard powder. The meat is then heated slowly and gently to warm it all the way through to the requisite degree of “doneness”. Then, and only then is the meat exposed to a high degree of flaming heat, and then only for long enough to flavour the outer layer of the meat with the tasty flambe beef flavour, a matter of seconds only.
Mmmmmm!!
I am Canadian and I have been told by an aboriginal Canadian, a Mohawk Indian that vegetarian is an old Indian word.
It means “white man who can’t hunt”
Don’t think the first posting went through … forgive me for wasting more bytes if it did.
I read the Goebbels’ diaries and it is clear that Hitler was a vegetarian.
I don’t think that changes the health benefits of being a knowledgeable vegetarian, but to conclude it somehow makes you “superior” is nonsense.
The diaries of both Goebbels and Bormann clearly prove this. Also, he hated any cruelty to animals (excluding his human victims).
You can be a monster, but also have good personal habits. We don’t despise Hitler and his henchmen for their dietary choices. Saints and Sinners and Madman can be vegetarians.
Wikipedia
In a diary entry dated April 26, 1942, Joseph Goebbels described Hitler as a committed vegetarian, writing,
“An extended chapter of our talk was devoted by the Führer to the vegetarian question. He believes more than ever that meat-eating is harmful to humanity. Of course he knows that during the war we cannot completely upset our food system. After the war, however, he intends to tackle this problem also.
Maybe he is right. Certainly the arguments that he adduces in favor of his standpoint are very compelling.”[12]
Martin Bormann, who as head of the Party Chancellery (and private secretary to Hitler) is considered by most historians to have been the second most powerful Nazi official in Germany, built Hitler a large greenhouse at Berchtesgaden in order to keep him supplied with fresh fruit and vegetables throughout the war.
Personal photographs of Bormann’s children tending the greenhouse survive, and by 2005 its foundations were among the only ruins associated with the Nazi leadership still visible in the area.
Finally, in his personal life Hitler showed anti-meat tendencies. Hitler disapproved of cosmetics since they contained animal by-products. He frequently teased his mistress Eva Braun about her habit of wearing makeup.[8] In his post-war reminiscence The Enigma of Hitler, Belgian SS General, and friend of Hitler’s, Léon Degrelle wrote:
“He could not bear to eat meat, because it meant the death of a living creature. He refused to have so much as a rabbit or a trout sacrificed to provide his food. He would allow only eggs on his table, because egg-laying meant that the hen had been spared rather than killed. (13) end Wikipedia
Question- who do you believe; those who personally knew Hitler and his habits or those today who don’t want him be a vegetarian.
Hell, I don’t want him to be part of the human race, but I have to accept that fact.
The Times shows 668 comments: I read 80, of which 3 agreed with the trougher Stern (Sir became Lord because he jumped when our great Prime Minister Brown spoke).
My ancestors didn’t fight their way up the food chain for me to be a vegetarian. I have teeth designed to eat meat as well as the veg I love. I have the enzymes to digest meat. I am an omnivore and proud of it!
The real question is what will be served during the Copenhagen conference? Will it be all vegan? Will all the liquids imbibed be local water, juices, wine and spirits made in Denmark to limit their carbon footprint? Surely all their food will be locally produced and in season (no long term refrigeration/freezing). Does this mean the delegates will be eating Danish winter root vegetables and drinking local water, wine and spirits? If so I’ll pass on the conference and retreat to my barbie. That is if summer in Sydney makes itself known. We haven’t had that many warm days so far this spring! It’s certainly not the Sydney weather I remember from the late 70s when I was in high school when the world was allegedly cooler. 😉
Do I sense another Nobel Peace prize winner – congratulations Lord Stern for a brilliant idea to save all farm animals and fish from ending up on the dinner table – AND saving the planet from climate armageddon.
(remember the Peace prize is now awarded for simply saying something that the Norwegian Parliament appointed Peace Prize Committee likes and not for anything you have actually done or anything that is remotely accurate – so this statement qualifies as much as any of the other recent winners – it may even trump recent winners in the nonsensical hyperbole category which is the prime method for ranking candidates)
If anyone wants to know what people have evolved to eat, all one needs to do is look in mirror and open their mouth. We have OMINIVORE chompers. Our entire digestive tract has evolved to derive sustenance from practically anything ( and I’ve personally eaten nearly everything that doesn’t have the defenses to prevent it ). That is not an accident. Every other life form on the planet has a more limited diet than people. We are at the top of the food chain for a reason. Personally, I like it here and intend to stay.
As others have observed, Nicolas Stern is neither climatologist nor nutritionist.
He is an economist : in 1981 he and 363 fellow senior economists signed a letter to The Times announcing that Mrs Thatcher’s economic policies would severely damage the UK, not rescue it.
Turned out the 364 were wrong and Mrs. T and the two smart renegade economists she relied on were right.
So it goes.
Jim B in Canada (10:46:33) :
Hey speaking of crazies with agendas, the science museum reset the opt out count!
http://www.sciencemuseum.org.uk/proveit.aspx
Did anyone get a screen of the count before the reset?
They are now doing email verification, count me out is still in the lead:
* 5436 counted in so far
* 6669 counted out so far
@ Eve
Dittos. I, too, wrote a college paper in the early 70’s about using plant-source materials to “feed the world”. I found more than one source that discussed using soy to that end. The biggest problem with it was that the parts of the world that needed it the most were the ones that considered soy to be “poverty food”. It tasted really bad, and you don’t really thrive on it, up to that point all the efforts of the 1st world failed to enamor them with it. Since then, I have learned that soy’s best use is as a “green manure”–to fix nitrogen in the soil naturally. It has large amounts of anti-nutrients in itI. ts most common use in the Far East is as a condiment. The oil makes good varnish. And Bhuddist monks can make good use of it to control their urges (phytoestrogens, anyone?). Now that we have factories that can process huge amounts of soy into sometimes-palatable comestibles, overuse of soybean oil and soy fillers (flours, proteins, etc.) has contributed greatly to the current epidemic of hypothyroidism. It goes give you a docile populace, I guess, so it’s popular to use in prisons, but it is NOT going to reduce healthcare expenses. That is, unless you count killing off most of your people as a means to saving on healthcare. Not only that, but from a farming perspective, it’s a resource hog, especially if you’re using Roundup-ready beans. I can quote one farmer-banker who laughed when he said he had tried and stopped farming soybeans because he had “made his contribution to the bean”. It wasn’t profitable. Indeed, you don’t see miles and miles of soybeans in west Texas–you see scrabbly grass. It’s a losing proposition to try to grow a vegetarian diet out in west Texas. You’d better run livestock, but not too many.
I must add that you see lots of cotton in west Texas. Lots and lots of cotton! Where you don’t see scrabbly grass. And windmill farms.
All this talk about steaks is making me hungry. And it’s now time for me to fix dinner. Wonder what I’ll have….
BTW, regarding the comment about thinking of meat as recycled grass … my view is that meat is processed grass; what comes out of the other end of the cow is recycled grass. Which, in turn, invites several indelicate thoughts about AGW and its pompous proponents which I’ll leave unsaid – use your own imagination.
Thanks Power Grab. I was thrilled in the 70’s when I went to a food exhibition and they had meat slices, made from soy. Also in the late 70’s, grocery stores in Toronto were selling a soy hamburger mix. It was great, much cheaper, looked and tasted like hamburger. I wonder why that didn’t last? Sometimes I think marketing boards do more harm than good. In fact, they always do more harm than good. But when talking about doing more harm than good, humans have never seen anything as destructive as this global warming movement. There are kids in Boston who have pledged to sleep outside until Copenhagen. I am encouraging them. I imagine their parents are also.
Call this one of the newest and innovative ways your government has come up with to battle greenhouse gas emissions.
Indirectly it could be considered a cheeseburger tax, but one of the suggestions offered by the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) in its Advance Notice of Proposed Rulemaking (ANPR) for regulating greenhouse gas emissions under the Clean Air Act is to levy a tax on livestock.
“The tax for dairy cows could be $175 per cow, and $87.50 per head of beef cattle. The tax on hogs would upwards of $20 per hog,” the release said. “Any operation with more than 25 dairy cows, 50 beef cattle or 200 hogs would have to obtain permits.”
http://www.businessandmedia.org/articles/2008/20081230165231.aspx
Apparently the Admin. backed down from a cow tax for now, but kept methane on the list of greenhouse gases to be regulated by the EPA.
From the Times…
“[Stern] said that he was deeply concerned that popular opinion had so far failed to grasp the scale of the changes needed to address climate change, or of the importance of the UN meeting in Copenhagen from December 7 to December 18. “I am not sure that people fully understand what we are talking about or the kind of changes that will be necessary,” he added.”
Well, veggie lunacies aside, this sounds like a veiled threat to me. It’s worth wondering what ‘changes’ Stern has in mind that he believes his accomplices will be empowered to implement in a post-Copenhagen world?
Stern’s use of an historical example of ‘changed attitudes’ about drink-driving may be an important clue to his state of mind. Making it illegal to irresponsibly operate a car on the highway (when deemed psychologically unfit to do so and a danger to the wider public), could well suggest Stern anticipates making it illegal to ‘irresponsibly’ operate a website on the ‘super-highway’… deeming the owner of any anti AGW website both psychologically unfit and a danger to the future of the planet and its people.
Stern’s dark mutterings about “the kind of changes that will be necessary” and his apparent surprise that most people laugh at whatever fantasies slip out have all the hallmarks of a tyranny in the making to me.
Perhaps Anthony and all of us who value such beacons of light as WUWT, should be more prepared for the worst. Reading between Stern’s dark mutterings, it might be much closer than we think.
Re: Alba (13:40:37) :
“Up to 20,000 delegates from 192 countries are due to attend the UN conference in the Danish capital.” (The Times article on Lord Stern’s interview)
—
And that’s just the delegates. Then there’ll be the news crews, lobbyists, PR crews, eco-activist-climate-artists and sundry hangers on. But with a bit of luck, they’ll all get snowed in. Some food info here-
http://en.cop15.dk/about+cop15/going+to+cop15/sustainable+food+for+cop15
Not entirely sure what sustainable food is, unless the Danes have developed rather more radical recycling systems since I was last there. Chances of our UK delegates noticing how Danes manage their domestic waste & home energy are probably slim to none though. Our building regs are stuck in the dark ages compared to theirs.
“And windmill farms.” Power grab
I used to think those were nonsense but when we go big time nuclear we can run them backwards to create nice breezes and maybe divert hurricanes.
Meat’s just great. Green coloured vegetables are ok. Starchy tubers and cereals will result in Type II Diabetes Vegetable oils will cause cancer.
http://www.second-opinions.co.uk/low-carb_index.html
Non fermented soya will feminise blokes.
http://www.soyonlineservice.co.nz/
Pasta will make chaps very fat and womanlike. Hello fatty stern. Do please carry on killing yourself with cereals & save us the bother.
http://www.england2018bid.com/Contentimages/Bid%20team/Nicholas_Stern_026.jpg
How to win friends and influence people. Here’s a way of getting India to contribute to reducing a greenhouse gas, (as if it mattered)! Offer to harvest all the wandering cows to feed Westerners. Yum yum.
Check please!
I don’t know where Isaac Asimov got his info. but he said the human digestive system is weighted towards meat as 9 is to 7. I read somewhere that meat is the only food we can bolt down in the biggest chunks we can swallow, without chewing, and all the enzymes we need to digest it are waiting for it in our stomachs. I know of only one cave painting of a plant in all the cave paintings yet discovered and it seems to be there as a signal for when to look for salmon in the rivers. If you look up ‘life’ in any dictionary, the words in the definition all apply to plants as fully as to animals. Biologists will tell you that; “life feeds on life”. Maybe lichens eat rocks and sunshine but who envies their lifestyle. As far as I know, there is no place on this planet that a diet restricted to only the plants native to that place will not result in a serious vitamin or mineral deficiency disease. And there is no truth to the rumor that all the scientists doing research on plants being sentient feeling entities and emitting electrical screams when harvested died in unexplained accidents.
My mom is sending me a package of Omaha Steaks. They will arrive tomorrow.
http://www.omahasteaks.com/servlet/OnlineShopping?Dsp=1
My mom really loves me.
Barry Foster (12:24:48) :
Stefan. Our ‘natural’ diet is a mix. It would therefore be ‘unnatural’ to be either a carnivore or a herbivore. I don’t need to “try it sometime” as I was a omnivore. However, I’ve been veggie for 26 years now and enjoy perfect health. I’m not saying it would give you that too, as I believe health is primarily genetic, I’m just saying it works for me. I don’t care if someone eats meat as I’m not a veggie campaigner – I just do what I want, and hope you do too. I was merely pointing out that in the future pretty much everyone WILL be veggie because of land use/space. It will happen, it’s just a matter of time:
http://www.worldometers.info/
Barry Foster,
You and worldometers are caught up by science and technology already.
New crop production techniques have been developed and they can be applied indoors.
These techniques not only generate a very high yield per square meter but also optimize the use of water and fertilizer.
The real problem we face are the dire predictions and assessments of doomsayers and apparatchiks who believe humanity and population growth is a threat to the world. They are so blinded and obsessed with their views that they forget to see one of the most formidable properties of man.
The ability to think, learn, invent and develop science and technology with the potential to solve any problem or address (almost) any crises or threat.
The sum of all those properties is A D A P T I O N.
And we have become the masters of adaption.
All it needs is to look back and see how far we have come since the Industrial Revolution and imagine where we could be heading in 100 years from now?
Just think about all those doomsayers like the Club of Rome who predicted the end of the world in the sixties, an ice age and mass starvation in the seventies, mass deforestation due to acid rain caused by industrial emisions, nuclear armageddon, the ozone hole and Global Warming in the eighties, the flooding of New york due to melting icecaps in the nineties and the crash of our entire computer system (The Millennium Bug if you already have forgotten it) in 2000.
They were all wrong and non of their predictions have materialized.
Do you know that the current rate of our “knowledge” doubles every 8 months?
That is why it is a pretty frustrating experience to find the world’s focus directed at a non problem, pushed by a bunch of half wits who have decided to reduce the world population with the use of a false ideology based on semi science, fraud, lies and propaganda.
There are kids in Boston who have pledged to sleep outside until Copenhagen. I am encouraging them.
Me too! I would encourage them to live outdoors all winter without benefit of anything depending on emitting CO2 like electricity, heat, and food deliveries.
We could call it the “Taking The Cure Tour”. If enough kids did this the hysteria over CO2 would be over by spring. One way or another.
How much methane is produced naturally compared to how much is produced by man? More powerful? What does that mean in measurable terms? How much of the GHG is methane compared to CO2 and how much warming (theoretically) is produced by each?
Finally, how much extra methane is produced by garbage landfills compared to composting? I keep hearing that I will save the planet if I sort my garbage. In San Francisco they say that composting food scraps “protects” the environment.
Eating grass-fed beef (not grain finished which tastes good, but has had the natural meat chemistry ravaged) is one of the best things you can do for your health. There are myths that have been foisted on the trusting public that tell us eating beef is an incredible waste of energy, water and land, but if you do the research you will find that ranching (cattle raised naturally — not shipped to feedlots which does cause all sorts of problems) is much less wasteful of resources than the farming of grains or soybeans (which are a health hazard) . It is true there are some people who should not eat much, if any, beef due to their individual body chemistry, but other types of meats are usually fine for them. Eat your veggies, that’s for sure, but stay away from sugar — and all grains are digested to sugar so they should be used only in moderation. The Lord has jumped the shark — how come there is so much of that going on now? It’s like they are trying to tear down their own “urban legend”. Every single person should read Dr. Weston Price’s 1936 masterpiece, “Nutrition and Physical Degeneration”, it will show you just how far the truth has been manipulated. Our ignorance is expected and counted upon.
mr.artday,
I find my body seems to agree. I can eat a large or small portion of meat, and my stomach feels good, perhaps full, but good, and no flatulence. When I eat veggies, I find I can’t quite consume as much comfortably. When I eat processed grains like bread or pasta, I end up with a “brick” like feeling in the stomach, and a mental fog. Actually the mental clarity that’s come from eating meat is what convinces me of its importance, more so even than the shrinking waistline, which shrank quite noticeably. And that was even before I started losing weight, as the meat simply occupies smaller volume.
There’s some great info on Dr. Eades’ blog about the human rib cage’s shape, which tapers inwards at the waist, to give us potentially narrow waist, whereas in vegetarian apes it tapers outward to give them room for the larger guts.
The madness goes on. I just heard a report on Marketplace (NPR) that flatly blamed climate change for the pine beetle infestation in the area around Helena, Montana. Higher winter temperatures supposedly prevented the winter die-offs of the beetles.
I checked the weather data for Helena (winter temperatures 1900–2006). The trend is slightly negative for the period, with many periods warmer than today in the early and mid-twentieth century.
What can be done to debunk such reports?
Re: Jeh Custer (see above).
A followup:
http://www.smalldeadanimals.com/archives/012529.html#comments
More:
“sustain one – Jeh Custer
I travel EARTH to experience, contribute to, and become part of revolutionary and sustainable communities. I blog here to sensitize communal consciousness as I want live in a world where we feel inspired, energized, and motivated from our interconnected stories.
I long to see that light in your eyes where the UNIVERSE dwells because when we realize our ONENESS, together we can shatter destructive molds of apathy and take action for our collective future.
But we must believe, not with naïve optimism, but with realistic confidence that when we cooperate and work together we can coexist peacefully, end poverty, revolutionize the economic system, provide universal healthcare, implement clean energy, sustain planetary life, and give birth to a global community!
Our story is one of many colours and this is a painting of my path… ”
http://www.travelblog.org/Bloggers/sustain-one/
Please refrain from using “The Lord” in vain. There is only one “The Lord” and He isn’t some British politician. What kinda of world is this? It is looking to be a near thing to put off Armageddon but some will tempt fate. Fine. I have my ticket off planet.
All this talk of food is making me hungry. I think I’ll drive my SUV down to that nice steak restaurant on the other side of town and order a T-bone.
Lord Stern clarifies for us the old adage: To err is human, to fart bovine.
It will interesting to see the animal rights bubbas take on the environmentalists on this one. While at first glance they may be one and the same, on this issue, they can’t be.
You see, it doesn’t spare the world any bovine-generated methane simply to turn the poor creatures out to pasture (or meadow). The global population of cattle would have to be drastically reduced or it would make no difference whether they were eaten or not. Without meat (and leather), we have little need for cattle (I assume he objects to dairy products as well). The remainder will end up in zoos.
Since I am a dietitian, I have to make a few remarks about food choices. Starchy tubers and grains do no give anyone Type 2 Diabetes. Type 2 Diabetes happens when you weigh so much that your body shuts down you insulin receptors to make you lose weight. Not surprisingly, Type 2 Diabetes was unknown during WW1 and WW2 and the depression in between. What is the one universal thing we are seeing now and have been seeing for the past 30 years? Overweight people. When I was growing up there was one fat kid in my whole school. Go to any grade and high school now and you will see that most are overweight.
Pasta and bread causing mental fog. Yes, that is carbohydrate dumping. If you do not have any protein with your meal and you eat a whole lot of carbohydrates like bread, pasta, grains, etc, they go from your stomach to your intestine very fast resulting in a rush of blood to the area around your intestines to absorb the nutrients.
Vegetable oil causing cancer. Unknown about the polyunsaturates such as corn oil, sunflower oil, saflower oil but we do have a culture using olive oil for a long time, the Mediterranean diet. Have no incidence of more cancers in these people.
We are ominoves for a reason. We need some protein, I think with each meal, but some means an ounce or two or three. North Americans are overweight because they eat too much of it. Also we have stopped eating complex carbohydrates and changed to simple sugars. Complex carbohydrates contain fiber which fill you up and you must chew, slowing you down. Candy and soda are fast. I think I can eat a bag of chips without taking a breath, I certainly can with a bag of cheesies.
I just voted to count myself out, adding the following to my comment:
“Small natural variations in temperature do not mean the sky is falling. As a former weather observer, I have seen the gradual increase in the Urban Heat Island (UHI) effect, as more rural weather stations have gone offline and the remaining ones are badly sited. I used to walk out to Stevenson screens mostly located on grass and well away from buildings (well, there WAS one on the railing of the control tower). The digital readouts are handy, but the cable runs seem to be conveniently short, at least for the installers. See Anthony Watts’ project at surfacestations.org; 89% are badly located enough to introduce significant (upward) errors into the supposedly warming temperature data.
“That’s just one of the reasons I do not believe in Anthropogenic Global Warming, pardon me, “Climate Change.””
At the end of the comment section, they asked for nationality. Wonder if they’ll accept opinions from us non-Brits.
CrossBorder
If God didn’t want us to eat meat, why did he make animals so tasty?
All joking aside, I saw the communist manifesto in his “Lordship’s” diatribe. Pay the poor people, you rich capitalist pigs! Your conspicuous consumption and easier life is an affront to the oppressed poor!
They don’t call themselves commies, but they are. Communism and socialism are unsustainable because an unfortunate side-effect is they removes any motivation to work harder and thus everyone becomes someone who needs a handout. Why work harder when a lazy person gets everything handed to him or her? What will happen in the eco-communist ideal is the rich nations will pay the poor nations, but the rich nations will stop working so that they too can get payment too. Eventually there will be no wealth to re-distribute but by then, we are all screwed. Which is what the eco-commies want to save Gaia. Oh, but the enlightened UN and its bickering nations will solve all our problems.
If it wasn’t so true it would be like a very scary movie. Mark my words here and now, even if Copenhagen fails, even if “Lord” Stern fails to ban meat, even if climate change is denounced as the next cold fusion by everyone, the UN will find another way to flex its muscle over everyone. The fear may change, but not the goal.
Barry Foster posted(10:33:36) :
People DO need to give up meat, but not because of any climate nonsense, but because of the land and resources required to provide for animals. If everyone went veggie then there would be MUCH more land available and much less use of resources like water and energy.
Incorrect, the amount of land needed to grow a similar amount of vegetable calories would greatly exceed said tasty meat.
Alvin. that is correct. We would need double the amount of calories without meat plus we humans are omnivores and need some animal protein. We do not need as much as we are presently eating but we need some. I am thinking of past times, Greek villages who would roast a lamb once or twice a month. The rest of the time they ate fruit, vegetables, nuts and grains with cheese or eggs.
Eve, not that I want to turn this into a diet thread, and I only have the reactions of my body to go by, but why do we need carbs like bread, pasta, and potatoes?
The other evening I had dinner with my somewhat obese friend. His meal was carbs with some meat. Mine was meat. After the meal he was still hungry. I, having eaten a smaller portion, was satisfied.
I remember when I used to mix with bread and pasta. I’d invariably end up eating more carbs and soon I was going from bagel to muffin to donut to cake. By staying away from carbs, I find I have no hunger nor desire for them anymore. I’ve repeated this test a few times, to see how eating or avoiding carbs affects my cravings. This may or may not fit with what you know, but it is what my body does on its own, uninformed and spontaneously.
I just don’t see what I need the complex carbs for? (I eat leafy salads of course.)
Alvin (18:05:17) : Not precisely true, as for example soybean it is 50% protein (japanese “Tophu”-a terrible choice-) and it is used now (soybean cake-the residue after extracting soybean oil-)) for making compressed panels for construction. Protein from soybean cake can be extracted by boiling soybean cake in an alkaly medium, pH:9-10, then filtered it out solids, and protein reprecipitated by lowering pH to 4,5, filtered, washed, and redissolved in alkali, to be spray-dried afterwards. However it lacks two aminoacids, which, in any case can be added from corn protein.
(Roughly from three tons of soybean cake 1 ton of soybean protein extract is obtained).
But, But, nothing like an american angus beef steak.
How can you guys keep overlooking the obvious? Human beings are the problem right? We need to thin the human herd… no need to give up meat… the documentary on how to do it is decades old:
http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0070723/
BTW I wonder how long before government’s mandate the CO2 footprint be printed on every product along with the other ingredients. Also, we should not criticise heavy individuals… they are doing their utmost to biosequester carbon. They deserve medals /nod
Veggies anyone.
It took me awhile to digest that eating meat was like drinking and driving. Kind of like AGW is about always telling the truth.
I agree, lets not turn this into a diet thread but yet the global warmists have. All animal life and plant life on this planet are based on carbon and everything we eat contains carbon. In fact this planet is a carbon based planet. As Carl Sagan said ” we are star stuff” changed by Joni Mitchell to star dust, 8 million year old carbon.
We need carbohydrates because all our cells run on glucose. Carbohydrates are 100% glucose. Fruits and vegetables are carbohydrates and 100% glucose. Half of protein can be converted to glucose and 1% of fat can be converted to glucose. So trying to run your body on protein and fat is like trying to burn coal in a wood stove. It may work but there is waste. The problem in humans is that your body uses glucose. The brain only uses glucose. If you do not provide it, the body will burn your muscle to provide glucose. This is why carb free diets work. It is also the reason why when you go back to eating normally you gain weight. You have lost mucle mass and mucle mass burns more calories than fat.
Your friend has more cells than you. Each cell requires glucose which is why he was still hungry. This is why I tell people to eat 6 small meals or snacks a day, eat only foods that they have to chew (I don’t think you chew muffins or even bagels) and include some (1 to 3 oz) of protein each meal. On the other hand, it does not matter to me or your body if you get your carbohydrates from grains, bread, pasta or fruits and vegetables. Just get some and pick the ones that are hardest to chew or get into. Try some of that hunters rye bread with chunks of (what looks like) bark in it. An example is the time between peeling and eating an orange or drinking the 1 to 2 oz of juice that orange might provide.
“JT (10:44:32) :
Which creates more methane.
70 million cattle or 70 million buffalo? There were up to 70 million buffalo 200 years ago in the US.
How did their methane affect the climate?”
Termites produce more methane than all other living, dying or dead animals and plants put together. The planet seems fine.
The production and use of concrete generates more CO2 than all other forms of CO2 production in the use of fossil fuels and energy production (In the UK at least).
“Bulldust (18:32:07) :
BTW I wonder how long before government’s mandate the CO2 footprint be printed on every product along with the other ingredients. Also, we should not criticise heavy individuals… they are doing their utmost to biosequester carbon. They deserve medals /nod”
Already happening in the UK.
http://www.meatprocess.com/Industry-markets/Food-firms-to-trial-UK-carbon-footprint-standard
He predicted that people’s attitudes would evolve until meat eating became unacceptable.
I have a couple of vegetarians in the extended family (ovo lacto), and my immediate family eat vegetarian about 2 to 3 days a week. It isn’t easy (and I don’t mean that in the sense of “comfortable”, I mean it in the sense of “to do functionally well without effort”). The book “Transition to Vegetarianism” (or something close to that) is written by an M.D. and gives the specific biological needs that are filled by meat, and how to get the same things from plants.
It conveniently takes you, stage by stage, from dropping red meat, dropping white, then fish, then eggs, then milk, then… At each stage you must be ever more careful about exactly what you eat, and when, to keep your nutritional status correct.
What I learned from it was 2 things.
1) You can happily live a vegetarian and even a vegan life.
2) It is so darned hard to “get it right” that eliminating all animal products (or even all warm blooded animal meat) is just not worth it. We are clearly evolved and adapted to eating meat. We need it and we will be ill without some meat unless we take very unnatural actions and are extraordinarily careful in what we consume.
And that probably explains some of the oddities about some vegetarians. They are surviving, but without careful actions, are having some nutritional issues they do not recognize.
With that said, most of us could well live a bit better with a chicken alfredo every so often instead of roast chicken and some beef stroganoff instead of roast beef and a "ham and potato casserole" instead of straight ham.
But I see no reason that ought to be anyones business than the person with the fork.
So if Lord HoHa thinks folks are going to become vegetarian, he needs to read up on the "issues" involved (B vitamins, Iron, Omega 3 fatty acids, just for starters. Yes, there are plant sources, but how many folks know to eat a lot of spinach, beets, flax seeds, … or want to…) before recommending it.
Oh, and male children ought not to eat large quantities of soy. The "phytoestrogens" are not a good idea… Not all that great for girls, either, but those issues are more manageable. So you will also need to watch out for vegetarian diets that raise the protein ratios with lots of soy products.
Basically, after "giving it a go" we decided that it was just too darned hard to do it right. Easier to have the occasional scrambled eggs, the glass of milk, and a beef burger or some fried chicken. Did learn how to make some really good vegetable dishes in the process, though.
Eve, I guess the question I’m left with is, how much glucose does the body need?
I lost weight and then it levelled out and stayed constant, whist on a diet of meat, fruit and veggies. I found my energy levels, contrary to what your description might suggest, my energy levels actually went up. For example, I had to move out of the apartment and the lift was broke. I was amazed at how I managed the stairs to the 3rd floor 20 times carrying boxes. I simply couldn’t have done that before. So I guess I am left wondering, do a few fruits and veggies provide all the glucose I need? They seem to. My weight levelled out, and my energy went up. Eating potatoes and pasta at this point seems completely superfluous.
Anyway, I just find it interesting.
Richard Briscoe (10:21:14) : Rather reminds me of the old joke.
If you laid all the Economists in the world end to end, you still could not reach a conclusion…
Barry Foster (10:33:36) : People DO need to give up meat, but not because of any climate nonsense, but because of the land and resources required to provide for animals.
This fails on two counts. First off, take corn. You can not eat the stalks and leaves. A cow can. For maximum yield of “food per acre” you run a mixed farm with ruminants to turn the cellulosic stuff into usable stuff. Anything else results in less food per acre, not more.
But we don’t do that very much, you say? Yes, which brings up point number two. We have so much excess land that millions of tons of straw, stems, leaves, et. al. are just left to rot. There simply is no reason to “conserve” because we can produce at least 10 times more food than we do today if we needed to. So there is no reason to deprive yourself, since there is no shortage of “stuff” and that includes food supply; present and future.
http://chiefio.wordpress.com/2009/05/08/there-is-no-shortage-of-stuff/
In the future everyone WILL be almost vegetarian. Meat will be an expensive luxury. Admittedly that time is quite a way off, but it WILL come.
Not in my lifetime. Not in my children’s lifetime. Not in my grandkids lifetime. Not in 200 years. Not in…
This is craziness #2. Lots of number left o get the rest of them.
😉
The two things that you cannot get enough of in a vegan or vegetarian diet are B-12 and iron. I have a cousin who is a vegan (would like to say she is not a blood relative but she is) who has to get B-12 shots. I have not asked what her iron status is. What I do know is that she is obese and unhealthy. On the other hand I have no problem with eating vegetarian a couple of nights a week. Being an omnivore means some animal protein. You can get vegetable protein with beans and rice or corn and beans. But at some point you need meat, not chicken or fish, red meat.
Can I eat Lord Stern,with or without veg?
Used to raise beef critters. Mostly Brahma mix with Angus and scrub cattle This was in Florida where he soil was sandy that most nutrients leached below the root level so fast that it was impractical to do much improvement other than to remove some of the rougher vegetation. Our beef was grass fed and we found the best time to slaughter for consumption was usually around early to mid June. that was when the fastest growth cycle of the animal occurred. For personal use we processed only yearling stock. The flavor and taste were quite good. On the other hand if you were to early the “dry season was in full force and if to late the hot season was in full force” causing the meat to be tough and stringy. It is all in the growth rate of the critter.
The removal of the buffalow wasn’t for its meat or skins. it was for the bounty. the skins was an added extra and the meat was wasted although it is much better quality than beef. The destruction of the buffalo was for the purpose of starving the indian tribes into submission. It worked.
Makes one wonder why some one would propose veggie only diet when most folks nowadays wouldn’t know how to grow a bean.
By the way Roger Sowell if you get the chance and are near El Paso Tx. try the El Paso Land and Cattle Co. It is a great place to get any cut of beef you want. The last time I was out there it was moved out of town east on Interstate 10- about 30 miles. Great food and very friendly staff.
One of my favorites is Pork loin marinated over nite in red wine and injected before roasting with a mix of red wine and honey. Try it some time salt and pepper with lemon to taste.
Bill Derryberry
Get ready for a heat wave, folks. I’m ordering some steak at Outback tonight.
Ron de Haan (16:43:24) : You and worldometers are caught up by science and technology already. New crop production techniques have been developed and they can be applied indoors. These techniques not only generate a very high yield per square meter but also optimize the use of water and fertilizer.
Not only can, but have. Tomatoes for canning and sauce are still field grown, but in California the tomatoes for sale whole are largely hot-house. Same thing for a lot of the zukes and cukes. Specialty lettuces are often hydroponic too. Basically, you get 3 to 10 time the yield per acre, much lower pesticide costs, less water cost, better quality with fewer blemish rejects, and more.
In the “no shortage of stuff” link there is a section on food. My favorite is the links to the Disney World hydroponic / aquaculture / aeroponics exhibit. The produce from it is used in the hotels on property. This is not sci-fi, it is commercial on very large scale today. One of the largest operations is a sand bed system in Saudi Arabia. I’ll let you guess why 😉
One of my favorite systems was developed by NASA. It is about the size of a kitchen table – about 7? feet high, but has a bunch of layers each about 9 inches high. They developed a special 6 inch grain (wheat?) to grow in it. in tests, it produced enough salad stuff for a space station full of folks. Don’t remember the yield of other foods. Basically, if you can build a high rise apartment to live in, you can produce enough food in part of the space to feed everyone. We don’t do it because we have cheaper alternatives.
Just think about all those doomsayers like the Club of Rome
As I understand it, there is some link showing them to be behind the AGW thing too. On my someday list is to investigate just who funds those loons.
David S (17:33:05) : All this talk of food is making me hungry. I think I’ll drive my SUV down to that nice steak restaurant on the other side of town and order a T-bone.
Silly person. Everyone knows that’s a bad choice. The Porterhouse is far superior!
Stefan, it sound like you are doing great. The extra energy and your ability to climb the stairs 20 times came from the lost weight. You do not have to lug around the big heavy body anymore so you have more energy and can do more. That is a good thing. Get your animal protein down to no more than 6 oz a day and your body will let you know if you need more food. Listen to it. It will also tell you when you are no longer hungry.
You do not have to eat potatoes and pasta. As I said, eat only food items you have to chew hard and take a while to eat. I think pasta just slids down, no chewing necessary. If you eat potatoes only eat them baked. Check the fiber content of everything and only pick carbs with over 4 grams of fiber a serving
Cf. Pohl and Kornbluth, The Space Merchants, where meat was provided by a gigantic living block of in-vitro animal muscle called “Chicken Little.” It was located somewhere like Puerto Rico, as I recall (it has been many years, but the image stayed with me). Sounded plausible to me.
/Mr Lynn
That’s what we need, for sure. I tried to interest Mitt Romney in the role, but never even received a form letter from his staff in reply. Maybe Sarah Palin could lead us out of this wasteland. Or better, someone not currently in politics, like General Petraeus. . .
/Mr Lynn
What’s with all these Lords, do they just appoint themselves to whatever title they like?
“Maybe Sarah Palin could lead us out of this wasteland.”
As a Brit., I’m hoping for a Palin/Bolton ticket for ’12. Her drive and his sophistication would be a powerful force.
Eve, thanks again for the feedback. Just for the record, I was never overweight, I was just starting to add a few kilos over the years, and I wanted to stop that trend. So I’m still curious about the extra energy—I wasn’t a big guy lugging around lots of weight—seems more like my body was stressed somehow, and cutting out stuff provided relief.
Norm/Calgary (20:31:29) :
You can buy titles if you want:
http://www.elitetitles.co.uk/
Effectively you buy a square foot (or somesuch) of a titled estate and you get to call yourself Lord/Lady of . One of the secretaries at work is Lady Tracey of Tattingstone. I notice she was promoted in the last year … this stuff must work!
Patrick Davis (19:27:57) :
Wow… the Brits really have lost the plot… I feel your pain.
As others have said humans are omnivores. Our teeth are designed for such a diet. Our body chemistry requires it.
The main thing it’s not possible to get in a strict vegan diet is the B vitamin group, especially B-12. The human body can store quite a lot of those vitamins but when not replenished they’ll run out.
Look up B vitamin deficiency diseases. Among them are brain and nerve damage. Let it go long enough and the damage is permanent.
There’s no such thing as a healthy vegan diet. You MUST take supplements of the vital chemical compounds only meat can naturally provide. Most forms of supplements are a poor substitute because they’re not in the same form as the natural versions in meats and are harder for your body to utilize.
When researching vegetarian stuff, check to see whether or not the diet is promoted for children. If whomever is pushing vegetarian or vegan eating for children, don’t take their advice at all.
A child’s developing and growing body needs meats and fats to obtain the compounds for proper muscle, brain and nerve growth.
Lately I’ve been seeing many instances of people feeding dogs a vegetarian diet. Dogs are omnivores, their dietary requirements are much like humans. Feeding a dog a vegetarian diet is animal cruelty.
One of my favorite quotes from a book;
“What do you want on your vegetarian pizza?”
“Dead pigs and cows, they’re vegetarians.”
A vegetarian diet is better? But isn’t that really saying eat more meat…? Okay, so change the words to avoid being cannibalized, and you’re left with “eat a vegtable diet”, which implies that we all abstain from vegtables, and thus, presumably, eat more meat!
Burger King, as always, was way ahead on this one 🙂
People change their notion of what is responsible. They will increasingly ask about the carbon content of their food.
I want carbon in my food! Carbon is food, and food is carbon! It is the central element in the food chain, and without it, life does not exist.
It could easily be argued that the free distribution and ease of movement of CO2 is the only reason life has flourished at all – without such a compound, it would be extremely hard for any decent ecological cycle to perpetuate.
“Bulldust (20:48:20) :
Patrick Davis (19:27:57) :
Wow… the Brits really have lost the plot… I feel your pain.”
Fortunately, I dodn’t live there anymore however, what madness appears there seems to filter, some of it atleast, downunder, eventually.
“Direct emissions of methane from cows and pigs is a significant source of greenhouse gases.” if you ignore the fact that the food they eat absorbs co2 and its part of the “contemporary co2 cycle” i.e. no extra co2 is added to the atmosphere (methane converts to co2 in the atmosphere after a short period). Given the complete lack of scientific basis for the claims of cow farts contributing to global temperature, this must simply be a trick to make us all vegies. Why do scientists sit quiet when they hear such misleading claims?
Cows do not produce methane. Neither do termites. The actual agents are the cellulose-digesting microbes in the stomachs of cows and termites.
Cellulose-digesting bacteria are ubiquitous — in no way limited to the stomachs of insects and ruminants.
Cellulose, a product of photosynthesis, is going to get digested one way or another, or combusted, whether there are many cows or few cows on the planet.
Lord Stern may eat carbon-free food. After all, Stern means “star” in German and stars are mostly composed of hydrogen and helium.
But what about the other mortals, such as Gore which means “blood and flesh”? 🙂 Can they survive without carbon and steaks?
michel (11:31:03) :
: There is however a lot of truth in Stern’s view. It is true that if we really do want to reduce carbon emissions to around 20% of their present levels, one of the things we will have to do is totally reform the way we eat. We will have to go to more or less organic agriculture, which means that fertiliser will come from compost, we will use green manure, animals will be grass fed and graze not corn and soy fed in stalls. We will do a lot more hand weeding and hoeing. We may even go back to horse drawn transport. Chemical agriculture will have to stop totally. It will be back to 1870 or so in food production. Use of tractors will be limited, cars and planes will be abolished.
Problem is that would increase the carbon “hoofprint”
eg Abstract
A common perception is that pasture-based, low-input dairy systems characteristic of the 1940s were more conducive to environmental stewardship than modern milk production systems. The objective of this study was to compare the environmental impact of modern (2007) U.S. dairy production with historical production practices as exemplified by the U.S. dairy system in 1944. A deterministic model based on the metabolism and nutrient requirements of the dairy herd was used to estimate resource inputs and waste outputs per billion kg of milk. Both the modern and historical production systems were modeled using characteristic management practices, herd population dynamics and production data from U.S. dairy farms. Modern dairy practices require considerably fewer resources than dairying in 1944 with 21% of animals, 23% of feedstuffs, 35% of the water and only 10% of the land required to produce the same one billion kg of milk. Waste outputs were similarly reduced, with modern dairy systems producing 24% of the manure, 43% CH4 and 56% N2O per billion kg of milk compared to equivalent milk from historical dairying. The carbon footprint per billion kg of milk produced in 2007 was 37% of equivalent milk production in 1944. To fulfill the increasing U.S. population’s requirement for dairy products it is essential to adopt management practices and technologies that improve productive efficiency allowing milk production to be increased while reducing resource use and mitigating environmental impact.
http://jas.fass.org/cgi/content/abstract/jas.2009-1781v1
Stephan, it does not take much weight loss to feel better. Usually 10 lbs or 4 kg will do it. That 10 lbs takes 40 lbs off your knee every time you use it. No wonder you were able to manage the stairs better. When I was playing raquet ball, I could notice a lb difference in my game.
If we didn’t eat meat how will John Kerry’s wife Mrs Heinz Baked Beans sell any ketchup?
Last time I brushed my teeth I noticed I have a nice set of meat ripping incisors.
Thats how I’m made, no loony Lord is going to tell me not to eat meat. The guy is an idiot.
Lord Stern will do well to remember the old maxim, There are times when it is better to keep your mouth shut and appear a fool, rather than open it and remove all possible doubt!!.
I have found this thread amusing. First of all you have those on here (won’t mention names) who obviously have a problem with people being vegetarians – very sad. And there are others who think they know what they’re talking about, and I could tell them that they most definitely do not (again, no names). And there are an awful lot, and I do mean a lot, of incorrect statements been made. I’m not going to get into a discussion as I really can’t be bothered to try and make some see that they are ignorant of some very basic facts. Like I said, I’ve been veggie for 26 years. I only take one supplement, algae-based omega long-chain 6 (because I don’t eat fish). With a balanced veggie diet you DON’T need B12 or ANY other supplement. You may not even need the long-chain omega 6 (DHA-EPA) if your body makes it naturally. Unfortunately though, you wouldn’t know, and the body makes very little. If you want to become veggie then it’s really easy – despite what someone on here says. You only have to put in as much effort as you would if you had a health concern and you were told to watch certain foods. You will LOSE weight if you follow a proper diet. You will GAIN weight if you eat veggie rubbish, like cakes etc. But overall I just wanted to say go ahead and eat as much meat as you like, I don’t care about your body and mind, I only care about my own. I enjoy fantastic health, but that doesn’t necessarily mean it’s because I’m a veggie, and won’t necessarily mean that you will too.
I will point out one thing though, when someone offers an opinion it is childish to retort with “You’re wrong!”. I’m not wrong, it’s my opinion, not a matter of disputable fact. That applies to world population growth and the possibility that it’s not sustainable. With regard to Hitler, I repeat, the balance of evidence suggest he was NOT a vegetarian – not that it matters at all! If you have one source saying he was, against 20 other sources saying he wasn’t (actually it’s far more than that) then my OPINION is that he was not a vegetarian.
I consider that we should be above eating meat – as it’s not necessary. As an evolved an intelligent species I believe we should make a decision to not capture and kill another living thing. I think that’s neanderthal. However, that’s just my opinion and I wouldn’t join any campaigning group to get people to become veggie. It’s your choice. Enjoy what you eat, but respect others’ choices. Sorry that I won’t reply, but as I said, some discussions just aren’t worth the effort.
“Thats how I’m made, no loony Lord is going to tell me not to eat meat. The guy is an idiot.”
He’s not a real Lord, he’s just a Labour brown-noser. There was a point when you could expect a British Lord to have some breeding and class, but the Socialist hate of excellence has destroyed even this (who needs 800 years of tradition anyhow?) and now many are as common as muck.
Barry, I will say I disagree with you but that is what discussions are for. I doubt if any of us have a problem with you being a vegetarian. If it works for you, stay with it.
“Barry Foster (02:58:30) : ”
I, partially, agree with Barry, but not the “manufactured” supplements, IMO, there is no substitute. But what isn’t “manufactured” these days? I’d rather eat a well raised “beast” than pop pills. I’m not vegetarian, although I do eat less meat that I used to (20+ odd years ago) however, I know Indians who are vegetarians, their parents too, their grandparents, and so on, for generations, their whole lives. They are in perfect health, and smart.
Not Safe For Work…
http://www.thedailymash.co.uk/index.php?option=com_content&task=view&id=2171&Itemid=76
Barry, I think you’re absolutely right, everyone’s job is to figure out for themselves what works for them and what doesn’t. Genes, environment, all sorts of factors could be in play, so how can anyone be sure? Plus some things, even if they are going wrong, may take a long time to manifest. I personally am very enthusiastic about a meat diet, however, ask me again in 30 years, and we’ll see whether I’m still of the same opinion then. It’s an experiment, and I’m using myself as a test subject.
The Earth’s total land area is 179,941,270 square kilometres
(69,479,518 square miles). A little simple mathematics tells us that
at present, on average, one square kilometre has to support just over
thirty-three people. If all of it were cultivated, that would
certainly be possible.
We can discount the whole of the unproductive continent of Antarctica,
so that reduces the total by 13,335,740 square kilometres immediately.
We can also discount, at least as far as arable farming is concerned,
all other ice-covered areas, tundra, mountains, deserts, heath and
moor land, areas covered by rivers, salt marshes and lakes, cities,
roads, and railways; and to a large extent semi-deserts, savannah,
rain forest, low-lying meadow land and areas liable to regular
flooding. We have now discounted most of the Earth’s surface. In fact,
only eleven percent of the land surface is farmed.
As the population has increased this century, so the amount of land
available for cultivation has decreased. Where deforestation has taken
place to make way for cultivation, soils have been exposed to higher
precipitation and temperatures . These processes deplete the
soil’s organic matter, the soils harden and turn to desert. In 1882,
desert or wasteland covered an estimated 9.4 percent of the Earth’s
surface. By 1952 that area had increased to nearly twenty-five
percent. It is a growing trend and one which, once it has happened, is
very difficult, if not impossible, to reverse.
Almost all of the land we have just discounted does support grass or other plant life which we cannot utilise directly. We need a system which converts that grass into a form of food that we can eat. And we have one: much of the land we have discounted for arable use can be, and is, used for the raising of food animals
At present one-third of the world’s population is starving. If we all became vegetarians, we would have no use for, and would stop farming, all the land that will support only food animals. But taking all the land that supports food animals, but cannot support arable farming, out of production is hardly likely to ease the problem.
mercurior (08:29:32),
That’s an alarming post. However, the proposed solution — eliminating meat — has no relation to the problem. None, really. Because the problem is not caused by available farm land.
The real solution is much harder to achieve than replacing animals with cereal grains. That is because the entire problem is one of government, not arable land.
Two hundred years ago more than half the American and Euro populations farmed to provide food for themselves and the rest of the population. Now, well under 3% in the U.S. provide enough food for the entire population [including plenty of meat], and the U.S. has a hefty surplus to sell abroad and to give away as food aid.
The true problem is government. For example, contrast North and South Korea. The have the same language, the same culture and history, and the same geography. Yet one is so dirt poor that millions have starved in the past decade alone, and the other is immensely prosperous and well fed.
Most of Africa is also ill governed. In a lush continent with plenty of rainfall over most of it, food is still scarce in many places. Most Africans use wood and charcoal for cooking, when with the proper infrastructure, they could be using clean natural gas, or efficient coal ovens, and save their forests in the process.
Well run governments that operate under the rule of law and respect the ownership of private property always provide plenty of food for their citizens. And modern medical care, and modern transportation, and a 40 hour or less work week.
The fact that the UN actively supports dictatorial regimes like North Korea and Zimbabwe is reason enough to withdraw from that corrupt organization. But as long as the U.S. pours money into the UN kleptocrats’ pockets, nothing will change, and the U.S. will be complicit in the millions of starvation deaths that result from bad governments.
E.M.Smith (20:13:43) :
“As I understand it, there is some link showing them to be behind the AGW thing too. On my someday list is to investigate just who funds those loons”.
Who needs to fund George Soros, Ted Turner, Prins Charles, Beatrix and all the other
tree hugging Royals who head the world’s charity industry, WWF, Greenpeace etc, etc.
http://green-agenda.com
Eve,
People can get become insulin resistant without being overweight. Insulin resistance comes from bombarding your body constantly with blood sugar spikes from starchy tubers, sugar, bread, etc. Insulin resistance leads to Type II diabetes. Not everyone’s body reacts the same way, but eating too much sugar/starch will make many people insulin resistant.
To put it another way, insulin resistance makes people overweight, not the other way around – as insulin is responsible for fat storage.
Body becomes more insulin resistant > it produces more insulin > the extra insulin stores fat > body gains weight
Then:
body continues to ingest sugar/starch > pancreas can’t produce enough insulin due to increasing insulin resistance > Type II Diabetes
http://www.vivo.colostate.edu/hbooks/pathphys/endocrine/pancreas/insulin_phys.html
Sorry, I have to say you are wrong on that one. We have groups of people who subsisted on starchy carbohydrates forever. In fact humans once ate mostly starches. I am talking about the Irish who ate potatoes and often only potatoes, the Scots who ate oats and barley and often that is all, Mexicans with their corn and beans, the Chinese and japanese with rice. It is not unti recently that people could afford enough food to make themselves sick. I assure you that I could eat nothing but tubers, sugar, bread, etc for the rest of my life and I would never develop Type 2 Diabetes. Why? I am not overweight. The thinner you are the more insulin sensitive you are.
Resist!
climate by seablogger
The fool in charge of “climate” in Britain has proposed that everyone quit eating meat to save the planet. If you should happen to debate someone who holds such views, try the puritan argument. These people invariably detest religious puritans, They could not imagine keeping Jewish dietary law. Yet they would impose on themselves and (mainly) on others privations that arise not from any practical need — the planet requires no saving, though civilization is clearly in danger — but from the profound puritanical impulse. They are no different from pagans sacrificing the first-born lamb — or child — to placate imaginary gods.
Meanwhile the Copenhagen conference approaches. It will produce no unanimity — India and China have already signalled they will sign nothing substantive. But Obama will go with the godawful draft and so will the Europeans. He will sign, and if ratification fails — as it probably will — he will attempt to enforce Copenhagen provisions by executive order. This will work, since no contitutional challenge to his arrogations has yet emerged.
Then there is cap-and-trade. Everyone in the US is distracted by healthcare debate, but this horror is in the legislative pipeline too, and after that, Obama will be presenting multiple treaties to abrogate US sovereignty — not just the climate treaty, but the old “law of the sea” gambit and others. The American people must resist all these follies through congress and the courts, until they can reverse their foolish vote of 2008.
http://www.seablogger.com/?p=17593
Especially interesting the link provided in the original article.
So ban eating meat, or reducing its production, will cause starvation, and death. Thats a FACT.
Due to the so called methane produced by the cows. So a theoretical problem (which may never happen at all), is solved by… creating more deaths.
Barry Foster (10:33:36) :
People DO need to give up meat, but not because of any climate nonsense, but because of the land and resources required to provide for animals. If everyone went veggie then there would be MUCH more land available and much less use of resources like water and energy. In the future everyone WILL be almost vegetarian. Meat will be an expensive luxury. Admittedly that time is quite a way off, but it WILL come.
Total BS Barry,
Again, our science, technology and lessons learned from the past have caught up with alarmist doom preaching accepted as “reality”.
One example:
When the US was colonized, millions of Bison roamed the plains.
These animals are excellent meat producers.
They don’t need any special care and their thick fur protects them from the blizzards and extreme cold which would kill the extensive cattle stocks.
Farmers have rediscovered the unique properties of the Bison and breeding programs will bring them back in big numbers.
Intensive cattle breeding and indoor agriculture producing incredible high yields will significantly reduce the amount of land used for agriculture.
I regard the remarks from Lord Stern as semi socialist hog wash, fully in line with the European Party Line that will dominate our lives the coming years, unless we stop those loons (and we will).
The reality is that they will need to turn Europe (and the US for that matter) into a totalitarian police state in order to enforce the CO2 emission reductions.
People however have the tendency to fight for their rights and freedom and don’t accept any kind of repression.
So if Lord Stern continues his rands against humanity and civilization [snip, sorry, but . . . ~ Evan]
nick-ynysmon (11:09:18) :
I once ate meat, like a carnivore, until by good fortune I got away from eating it. It all comes down to a few simple points. One, compassion and love for nature and all its creatures. This is no simplistic fuzzy emotional thing, but derives from common sense, and a recognition that a we are all spiritual beings . Living from our highest nature, not from the sheer animal, selfish part that for many is the norm. This is a fact!!!!
Next point, if we stopped a eating meat, we will be far far healthier. This is a fact also..
Next point, global warming will ease considerably. I like so many here on this forum, believe the debate as put forth by such as Al gore, is extremely naive and at best a con trick by the established elite. a way of manipulation. However, the ecosystem can never be in full balance until we learn to live in a way that is balanced. This includes stopping the pollutants we pour into the atmosphere and biosphere. Carbon dioxide is a poison like anything else if it is in excess of what nature intended. This is a philosophic point however.
Last point, out of living as compassionate as opposed to selfish beings which we are now, we will be much happier, nature instead of being something we use for our convenience will be something that is therapeutic instead. Something we live peacefully within, not something we are in contention with . And it takes far far less food taken from a field say, used directly for our own consumption than being diverted through the gut if an animal first. This alone is common sense.
Nick,
You are entitled to live the life you want to live and think and believe what you like, nothing wrong with that, but please, never use the words common sense, carbon dioxide and poison in the same posting again.
Ron de Haan (13:19:34) :
I agree about the American Bison, and their millions upon millions. When added to the immense herds of antelope and other herbivores in Africa (and elsewhere), one must wonder just HOW did the earth survive all those years, with mega-tons of methane emitted from those critters? Surely a “tipping point” was reached?
Furthermore, through re-reading The Prize (Daniel Yergin), oil was discovered in areas where natural gas (methane) was vented from the earth – and sometimes caught fire. How many millenia did those methane vents spew forth their GHGs – and why didn’t the earth reach another “tipping point?” (btw, one can visit the La Brea tar pits in Los Angeles, and see bubbles of methane every few seconds. Some bubbles are six to eight inches across.)
Also, ocean floor vents spew methane into the atmosphere – as documented offshore Santa Barbara, California. How did all those ocean vents not create a “tipping point?” We are told over and over how MUCH MORE POWERFUL methane is as a GHG compared to puny little CO2.
see
http://www.eurekalert.org/pub_releases/2006-07/uoc–gef071906.php
Then, after the American Bison were almost eradicated in the late 19th century, how did the earth’s GHG balance manage without all that methane placed in the atmosphere?
So many questions… for which AGW warmists have no answers… except The Debate Is Over, and The Time For Action is NOW!
John McDonald (13:34:45) :
Please do a similar research on the production of bio fuels, the new Green Mantra.
Calculate how much water is needed to produce one gallon of ethanol and one gallon of bio diesel.
Roger Sowell (14:34:09) :
Spot on as always, thanks Roger.
nick-ynysmon,
A spiritual awareness doesn’t in and of itself grant ecological balance.
Did you know that fully enlightened Japanese Zen masters said that the one thing they regretted was not having had a chance to become Kamikaze pilots to defend the Japanese Empire?
Did you know that the Dalai Lama thinks being gay is a sin?
Spirituality does not in itself lead to a “correct” or “wise” belief.
Learning to meditate means you can be very good at entering meditative states. It doesn’t make you a better mathematician, mechanic, or piano player. It doesn’t mean you become good at ecology.
Spirituality is a very complex and subtle thing, and we do it a disservice if we naively pigeonhole it as being the “answer” or “the way” to all problems. I’m sure even the Mullahs in the Middle East, who spend a lot of time praying, are having spiritual experiences, but it is not changing their beliefs about war and aggression. The things are unrelated, separate parts of our being, like being a mechanic doesn’t mean you automatically know how to cook. Being spiritual doesn’t automatically mean one is wise.
It is a bit shocking, I know.
One more observation:
Personally, I have no use for vegetarianism, however I respect anyone who decides they want to practise it. What I do have is derision for those who would force me to stop being an omnivore. Vegetarian by choice? Great! Vegetarian by force? That’s science-fiction stuff.
Now, to put that into perspective, I also have no use for the gay lifestyle, but really don’t care if anyone wants to practise it. I am, however, offended by many of those forcing me to be aware of it.
I’m not religious, but I have respect for people who are. I would never mock them, certainly not where they can see, but am less than thrilled by those who expect me to follow their religion.
See a pattern here?
What this guy has done is state that my insistence on daily meat protein is bad, or unhealthy, or humorously, “bad for the planet”. That’s not acceptable. And I think that’s what a lot of posters on this thread are basically saying.
In all my examples, the repulsive and annoying individuals are the ones trying to force their belief system on me. I have my own, thank you very much, and although I’m open to reasoned explanations of yours, I’m very much against imposition.
CodeTech,
That’s very much the issue. I suspect that a number of influential people are trying to use the modern, rational respect for science, as a means to shift people’s lifestyles towards a different set of values. Those who genuinely consider science as the best possible way to establish truth, with its self-correcting (eventually) peer review, are pretty much having to go with the scientific consensus. To not do so is to give up on science, which then sends one into a murky swamp of politics and superstition.
However, the key thing is that self-correction takes time, and this is why the AGWs cry that “but we don’t have time”, in effect, undermines the scientific method.
It is fine to trust the science because it is the science, so long as you have available a probationary period for any hypothesis.
But if AGWs continue to insist that there is no time, then the process is by definition not scientific. It is “best guess”. It is “hunch”. It is “leap of faith”.
They cannot have it both ways.
UK ranchers not too happy about Stern:
“Dr David Garwes, an independent livestock scientist, recently published a report, ‘Reducing Emissions from Livestock’, in which he said livestock actually helped to limit carbon emissions.
“More than 60 per cent of British agricultural land is grassland and much of it, particularly the hills and uplands, is unsuitable for other crops.
“Semi-permanent rough grazing and improved grasslands play a vital role in locking up carbon dioxide and regulating the flow of rain into water courses.
“Without livestock farming, those natural resources would be abandoned,” he said.
Imports
Critics added a reduction in UK livestock production, as envisaged by Lord Stern, would open the market to foreign imports with a worse carbon footprint than the domestic product.”
http://www.farmersguardian.com/news/industry-hits-back-over-call-to-eat-less-meat-to-save-planet/28592.article
@ tj
Strong Dittos. I also recommend that every single person read Dr. Weston Price’s book “Nutrition and Physical Degeneration”.
mercurior
Please give some evidence that the earth’s surface is 25% wasteland and desert in 1952 vs. 9.5% in 1882. Enviro nuts make lots of these types of claims and each time I examine them they are total fraud. Please post your pictures, sources, etc.
For example: In California – the central valley used to be a waste land, but after massive irrigation projects, it is now one of the most productive farmlands in the world.
For example: In Washington State – the massive Columbia River water projects have turned a massive desert into wine vineyards, potato fields … I can post google maps to show you.
For example: In Utah – the Mormons transformed a desert.
For example: In Israel – the settlers transformed a desert.
For example: In Egypt, China, all over S. America massive deserts are now productive farm land.
Only on the edge of the Sahara can you make any claim of increasing desert – which is an entirely natural process started 5,000 to 8,000 years ago. Everywhere else deserts are shrinking due to man, dams, and irrigation.
I’ll make you a $1,000 bet that the world has LESS wasteland and desert NOW then it did 70 years ago when the water projects really got going.
I’m sure you enviros probably call productive farms: wastelands of genetic uniformity in the service of the evil US Agra-business corporations. Of course, you ignore the fact that all species of animals enjoy the water and whole migrations of birds now rely on dams for their annual migration.
All the best
John
According to an Oxford University study published in the American Academy of Neurology September 9, 2008 issue of Neurology, vegetarians and vegans are six times more likely to suffer from brain shrinkage than meat eaters. Researchers speculate the loss of brain mass in vegetarians and vegans is due to a deficiency of Vitamin B12. This type of brain atrophy has been linked to Alzheimer’s Disease.
This might explain everything. At least where Lord Stern is concerned.
As an evolved an intelligent species I believe we should make a decision to not capture and kill another living thing.
How about plants? You think they are not living?
All animals kill to eat.
JC, I am not surprised. We are omnivores for a reason and that reason is that we need vitamins and minerals available only in meat. It reminds me that my cute little chipmunks are omnivores. They eat seeds and nuts that we feed them all day but when there was a downed hummingbird on the patio, it took no time until one of them was eating him. Kind of horrified me who was trying to save the hummer but then all animals kill to eat, even chipmunks who fit in your hand. I have many friends who are vegetarians and it takes work and supplements. I can’t remember the name of the man who said he was a vegetarian and had no problems but..he will.
So will the supplement cost of making us all vegetarians and the cost of growing double the food out weigh the cost of raising animals? I don’t think Lord Stern was serious, just another in the many scare tactics. Let me assure you, he eats meat and he eats well.
On another note, I think it is time to change how politics works. We are looking at corruption I have never seen or imagined before. I don’t think not voting works. I don’t think voting for either the Dems or the Republicans works. Time to vote for a party who are not all ready corrupted. I would suggest the Libertarians but take a look. I have no idea if they owe anyone.