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
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.