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
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
@ur momisugly tj
Strong Dittos. I also recommend that every single person read Dr. Weston Price’s book “Nutrition and Physical Degeneration”.