The Green New Deal Isn’t Just About Energy, It’s Also About Controlling What Americans Eat

From The Daily Caller

Michael Bastasch | Energy Editor

  • The Green New Deal seems to embrace the anti-beef and dairy industry sentiment of the environmental left.
  • Green New Dealers want to remake American society, including how to produce and eat food.
  • “I think it’s pretty clear they want to change people’s consumption habits,” said one economist.

The Green New Deal isn’t just a climate change manifesto targeting U.S. energy, it also looks to drastically change how food is produced and, ultimately, what Americans eat.

“I think it’s pretty clear they want to change people’s consumption habits,” Nic Loris, an energy economist at the conservative Heritage Foundation, told The Daily Caller News Foundation.

New York Democratic Rep. Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez and Massachusetts Democratic Sen. Ed Markey introduced highly anticipated Green New Deal bills in early February, calling for “net-zero” greenhouse gas emissions within 10 years through a radical transformation of America. The bills also call for a slew of new social justice and welfare programs totally unrelated to global warming.

The accompanying FAQ’s reference to eliminating “farty cows” sent ranchers into a panic, fearing Democrats were taking aim at their livelihoods. Environmentalists have targeted the beef industry for years, and concern over methane only gave activists more ammunition.

“Livestock will be banned,” Wyoming GOP Sen. John Barrasso, who represents lots of cattle ranchers, warned on the Senate floor after the Green New Deal was introduced. “Say goodbye to dairy, to beef, to family farms, to ranches.”

“Farty” was eventually deleted — in fact, most of the methane cows emit is from burping, not farting. The entire gaffe-riddled FAQ was eventually taken offline by Ocasio-Cortez’s staff amid the ridicule.

U.S. Representative Ocasio-Cortez and Senator Markey hold a news conference for their proposed "Green New Deal" to achieve net-zero greenhouse gas emissions in 10 years, at the U.S. Capitol in Washington

U.S. Rep. Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez and Sen. Ed Markey hold a news conference for their proposed “Green New Deal” to achieve net-zero greenhouse gas emissions in 10 years, at the U.S. Capitol in Washington, U.S. Feb. 7, 2019. REUTERS/Jonathan Ernst.

Even so, the legislation itself is no less radical than Ocasio-Cortez’s Kinsley gaffes. The bill calls for “working collaboratively with farmers and ranchers … to remove pollution and greenhouse gas emissions from the agricultural sector as much as is technologically feasible.”

“It’s technologically feasible to shut down factories and farms,” Loris told TheDCNF in an interview. “It can happen today.”

Loris’ point is that the seemingly benign language in the Green New Deal resolution is worryingly broad. Technological feasibility is an open-ended phrase the government has used to crush industries in the past. (RELATED: GOP Presents A Climate Change Solution That’s Not Socialism. It’s Called Natural Gas)

The Obama administration, in fact, used a similar rationale to impose a de facto ban on new coal plants. The Obama Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) essentially ruled the best way to reduce emissions from coal plants was to, well, use natural gas or renewables.

Loris said the Green New Deal seems to endorse the long-held disdain for industrial agriculture harbored by the environmental left, especially when it comes to beef and dairy operations. The resolution even calls for policies to encourage small-scale, “sustainable” farming. Does that mean they want the whole country to go local and organic?

NAFTA deal gives little help to U.S. dairy farmers

Miss USA and two other dairy cows eat their breakfast after their morning milking at EMMA Acres dairy farm, in Exeter, Rhode Island, U.S., 7 April, 2018. REUTERS/Oliver Doyle

Ted Nordhaus, director of research at the eco-modernist Breakthrough Institute, said the bill seemed to push so-called “regenerative agriculture” policies that often include implementing grazing methods to sequester carbon dioxide in the ground.

Proponents of “regenerative agriculture” say it would benefit farmers and ranchers, especially for ranchers who finish their cattle on grass. However, claiming that these methods can make beef operations carbon neutral is dubious, Nordhaus said.

Cows and other ruminant animals are a major source of methane — a byproduct of their unique digestive system. Livestock and their manure cause about 40 percent of greenhouse gas emissions in the U.S. agricultural sector, according to Breakthrough’s senior agricultural analyst Dan Blaustein-Rejto.

So any effort to cut U.S. agriculture emissions would necessitate dealing with cattle and dairy operations. With Ocasio-Cortez claiming humanity only had 12 years before catastrophe, what wouldn’t a concerned climate activist be willing to do?

In fact, the 2018 United Nations report behind Ocasio-Cortez’s 12-year-to-apocalypse deadline said “dietary shifts away from emissions-intensive livestock products” as one of the societal changes needed to keep future warming under 1.5 degrees Fahrenheit by 2100.

EPA data show U.S. agriculture emissions on the rise since 1990 while the country as a whole has cut emissions largely because of the natural gas boom. Agricultural emissions are mostly increasing because of methane from livestock manure management.

Media preview of this year's Academy's Governors Ball in Los Angeles

Master Chef Wolfgang Puck pours liquid nitrogen at a wagyu beef chuck during a media preview of this year’s Academy’s Governors Ball in Los Angeles, California, U.S., Feb. 15, 2019. REUTERS/Mario Anzuoni

Per capita beef consumption peaked in the 1970s, Nordhaus said, mostly over health concerns and innovations that brought down chicken and pork prices. Norhaus said continuing that trend was necessary to further limit emissions.

“A Green New Deal that was serious about reducing greenhouse gases from the U.S. agriculture sector would focus on supporting more, not less, intensification and improving the environmental performance of intensive systems through better cattle breeding, medical care, and then dealing with manure ponds and similar,” Norhaus told TheDCNF.

However, the Green New Deal resolution seems to suggest the opposite and reflects the environmental movement’s general opposition to industrial farming operations that provide Americans with affordable, abundant food.

The resolution calls for “supporting family farming,” “investing in sustainable farming and land use practices that increase soil health” and “building a more sustainable food system that ensures universal access to healthy food.”

Democrats and environmentalists that endorse the Green New Deal — every Democratic senator running for president in 2020 cosponsored the bill — tend to oppose large-scale industrial livestock operations.

The Organic Consumers Association, which also backs the Green New Deal, calls concentrated animal feeding operations “a disaster for the environment and our health.” The group also seems to oppose industrial-scale agriculture that currently feeds billions of people.

An animal rights activist from Animal Equality holds a dead pig during a gathering to protest the treatment of animals at Paulista avenue in Sao Paulo

An animal rights activist from Animal Equality holds a dead pig during a gathering to protest the treatment of animals at Paulista avenue in Sao Paulo, Brazil, Dec. 9, 2018. REUTERS/Nacho Doce

“We need stop the industrial overproduction of food — the root cause of agricultural pollution, food waste and greenhouse gas emissions,” Eric Holt-Gimenez, executive director of Food First, told Civil Eats.

Likewise, New Jersey Democratic Sen. Cory Booker, who’s running in 2020, railed against “the industrial animal agriculture industry” and its supposedly “devastating” impacts on the environment in a recent interview.

“The tragic reality is this planet simply can’t sustain billions of people consuming industrially produced animal agriculture because of environmental impact,” said Booker, a vegan. “It’s just not possible.”

However, research by Virginia Tech and the U.S. Department of Agriculture (USDA) found that eliminating the livestock industry would only reduce emissions 2.6 percent domestically, but that shift also came with a host of different health concerns.

That 2017 study found that eliminating livestock would deprive Americans of key nutrients and animal proteins, including calcium, vitamins A and B12 and some fatty acids. In fact, people would need higher-calorie diets to make up the nutrient loss.

Given everything else about the Green New Deal, including its democratic socialist overtones, it’s got many ranchers worried the resolution is more about changing people’s lifestyles and not just about reducing emissions.

Grass-fed beef products are pictured at a Whole Foods Market in Pasadena

Grass-fed beef products are pictured at a Whole Foods Market in Pasadena, California, U.S., July 24, 2017. REUTERS/Mario Anzuoni

Could Americans see a carbon tax on meat? What about policies against feedlots and other large-scale beef operations? Or what about incentives to eat less beef and more poultry and pork? Pro-vegetarian tax credits?

“A carbon tax on meat and dairy would have a hard time making it from economics textbooks into law,” environmental economist Richard Tol said in an email.

“I can see them nudging people through tax credits and mandates like they do with energy systems,” Loris said, referring to policies like tax credits for wind turbines, solar panels and energy efficiency upgrades.

“When you decide to incentivize one product over another that’s effectively a tax,” Loris said.

Rejto was skeptical of some sort of meat tax as well but said the government could incentivize “practices like feeding cattle algae or giving them drugs that reduce methane emissions could further reduce emissions.”

USDA could also “direct its research into cell-based meat and other next-gen meat alternatives,” Rejto added. “This could lower the cost of high-quality beef alternatives and reduce meat consumption through market forces.”

Follow Michael on Twitter

Advertisements

189 thoughts on “The Green New Deal Isn’t Just About Energy, It’s Also About Controlling What Americans Eat

  1. The most destructive gas exhaled by Ms OC (D) in not the CO2 in her breath, but rather the toxic words and ideas contained therein.

    • toxic ignorance :

      “We set a goal to get to net-zero, rather than zero emissions, in 10 years because we aren’t sure that we’ll be able to fully get rid of farting cows and airplanes that fast

      First she needs to learn which end of the cow the methane comes from. That would be a good start.

      Good luck with finding the farting airplanes.

      At least she can dance better then Theresa May.

      • Livestock and their manure cause about 40 percent of greenhouse gas emissions in the U.S. agricultural sector, according to Breakthrough’s senior agricultural analyst Dan Blaustein-Rejto.

        But hang on, what they eat was grown in the last year ie “carbon capture” ( they are not eating “fossil” carbon ). That must mean that the CO2/CH4 they release is “carbon neutral”. At least that is the green theory behind chopping down US trees and feeding them into Drax power station in the UK , instead of burning coal.

        • Methane that is in the soil is usually produced there. Methane is one of the few gases that is “lighter than air”
          It is impossible for cows to produce methane, in fact, no animal, fish or plant can make methane while it is alive. They all lack the proper biology for it. Only “aerobic bacteria” can make methane by digesting rotting (dead) material.
          The cellulose plants the cows eat does not produce methane easily, nor does it stay in their digestive tract long enough. They’re often fed antibiotics (growth hormone) that prevents bacteria from multiplying. 98% of the methane produced is after the cellulose material has left the cows body rotting in big piles of stinking dung heaps. When worked into the soil, it’s called fertilizer.
          What and how much cows eat is not relevant, hay/grass would still exist (even if cows did not) and would still rot on the ground every winter, just like tree leaves, producing the same amount of methane (with no economic or nutritional benefits) as the gas returns carbon dioxide to the atmosphere where the plants received it from in the first place, as part of the cycle of life.
          What a monumental waste that would be, like preventing people from using wood to heat homes by burning down the forest with the excuse of saving the planet.
          By the way, methane is 1.8 ppm in in our atmosphere, less than helium. Translation; if you had $1 million dollars on your table, (100 stacks of $100 bills 100 bills high) representing the atmosphere, methane would be $1.80 cents… Think about that.
          Carbon dioxide would be the equivalent of 4, 100 dollar bills. Too small of an amount to make a difference in the heating of this planet, but it’s all we have to sustain life… or the planet dies.

      • It was your boy dumpster who started the farting comments. Try schooling that doofus (on anything – good luck with that). The author’s bias is clear from that bullshit photo of “dairy cows eating their breakfast”. I live in Iowa. That photo is pure BULLSHIT.

        • Exactly who are you calling “your boy dumpster”? I am around cows, both dairy and beeves, on a regular basis and that is exactly what and how they eat. Feed goes in the mouth and exits the,,posterior. What exactly is your point?

  2. A constant refrain from the left has been conservatives want to take the country back to the 1800’s. With the GND, farming would require 40 acres and a mule.

    • Davis – 6:16 pm
      Communists are like that, they want to control EVERY aspect of your life.

      Yes, they want to kill off undesirables at birth and a forced trip to euthanasia center at a prescribed age.

      • Leftists don’t trust people because they know how leftists ‘think’. That’s why Stalin had no experienced generals left when WW 2 started. Leftists have NO friends.

        • The common bonds of trust that most of us take for granted don’t exist for the committed leftists. They’re suspicious of any human interaction that’s not referee’d by the State. Hence their hostility to traditional marriage and family, free economic agency, and just the voluntary approach to society in general.

    • She is about as American as an anchor baby.

      A good litmus test for being an American is to read the country’s manifesto – The Declaration of Independence. This is the document that described the motivation for what the Founders were willing to sacrifice, their lives, fortunes and sacred honor.

      It works this way: Start at the beginning and read through the document considering each statement and proposition. At the point where the first offense to your sensibilities and values occurs, stop.

      Most socialists can’t even get through the first paragraph. Most people brought up in Government School can’t even get through the first sentence of the second paragraph without being triggered into rage.

      On the other hand, a true American, once finished reading the document will be cheering and applauding.

      I doubt those who can finish the document even number among ten percent.

      • Well if only 10% agree, the document has outlived its usefulness, since 250 million odd folks who disagree are not going to up sticks and emigrate.

        Why should people born in 1990-2000 have to agree with a document written over 200 years ago? The world has totally changed, so the worldview of humans will have changed too.

        No American chooses to be born in America, they just are. To be told you must live unquestioningly values you played no part in shaping is the apotheosis of slavery, the absolute antithesis to being born with inalienable rights.

        The discussion board here suggests most commenters have no concept of the implications of freedom, not just freedom for them to pursue their narrow selfish interests, rather a whole society discussing fundamentally what kind of society they wish to live in.

        If you cannot cope with people seeing America differently, you do not believe in Freedom, you believe in authoritarian totalitarianism.

        • That’s why I suppose you think that children should rule and not there parents.

          I’m just wondering how long you think the lights would stay on?

        • Why should people born in 1990-2000 have to agree with a document written over 200 years ago?

          They don’t.

          Instead of trying to change your constitution surreptitiously, they should try the democratic route. All they have to do is get themselves and like-minded people elected to more than 51% of the House.

          But why should they seek election when they can force their will on others?

          • If they want to change the constitution, they need more than 51% of the house, they would need 2/3rds of both the House *and* the Senate *and* a majority in 3/4ths of the state legislatures

        • “The discussion board here suggests most commenters have no concept of the implications of freedom, not just freedom for them to pursue their narrow selfish interests, rather a whole society discussing fundamentally what kind of society they wish to live in.

          If you cannot cope with people seeing America differently, you do not believe in Freedom, you believe in authoritarian totalitarianism.”

          This is an example of framing that completely inverts reality by trying to make it look like those who champion individual liberty believe in authoritarian totalitarianism, whereas just the opposite is true. Those who prioritize group- or identity-based liberty above individual liberty are the true authoritarian totalitarians because they cannot tolerate individual liberty with its “narrow selfish interests” (as you say). Groupthink, with all of its totalitarian dictates and expectations, is anathema to and the antithesis of individual human liberty.

          • That’s exactly why the Founding Fathers did not create a democracy. And it is exactly the reason why progressives have changed America in a democracy.

          • “Rhys Jaggar February 18, 2019 at 1:17 am
            Well if only 10% agree, the document has outlived its usefulness, since 250 million odd folks who disagree are not going to up sticks and emigrate.
            Why should people born in 1990-2000 have to agree with a document written over 200 years ago? The world has totally changed, so the worldview of humans will have changed too.

            The discussion board here suggests most commenters have no concept of the implications of freedom, not just freedom for them to pursue their narrow selfish interests, rather a whole society discussing fundamentally what kind of society they wish to live in.
            If you cannot cope with people seeing America differently, you do not believe in Freedom, you believe in authoritarian totalitarianism.”

            Rhys’s bad math coupled with a generic rant that means very little in the discussion. i.e. another strawman logical fallacy where high sounding statements are floated without definition or direction.

            A) The topic is about progressive leftists tyrannically forcing their will, lifestyle choices, micro-management, urban beliefs upon everyone.

            B) The United States of America is a Republic with mechanisms to minimize tyranny by a majority and tyranny by vocal minorities.

            C) This was demonstrated very aptly during the 2016 Presidential election where equal representation and a huge majority of represented districts overrode a mostly urban area driven numerical majority vote.

            D) Activists are trying to use a slight majority in only one chamber of Congress as their mechanism to drive profound lifestyle and industrial change.

            “If you cannot cope with people seeing America differently, you do not believe in Freedom, you believe in authoritarian totalitarianism”

            “people seeing America differently”, a claim that is totally empty. This has been the case since the USA was formed.
            And especially amusing when non-Americans despise America yet are determined to dictate to America, lifestyle and industrial aspects from minutiae to major.

            At the same time, these non-Americans are eager to force their particular civilization and government choices upon Americans.

            “ten percent agree”, what a bizarre claim. AWG’s claim about 10% finishing the document is his personal opinion, not an official representation of American support for the Constitution.
            America’s current population estimate is a grand approximate total of 328.457,000 citizens.
            Ten percent works out to approximate 33 million, not 250 million!

            That ten percent can work with representatives to include their beliefs and ideas into modern government. Or if thwarted, they can use the courts to force official recognition and incorporation. A decision that recognizes the value of minority influences.

            Lastly, America’s founding documents, the Declaration of Independence, Constitution, Bill of Rights and Amendments are just as valid today as they were back in the late 1700s. And the process to amend the Constitution allows modification of the governing document when necessary.

            As ocasional cortex and many similar activists make very clear, they desire to tear down America’s Constitution in order to install a power structure they deem most favorable to themselves and their despotic tyrannical desires.
            Most are fools and tools, just as Hitler’s Brownshirts were.

        • LOL. I am American by the Grace of God, and Southeron by my advised choice and long experience. The South Will Rise Again. #MAGA

          Law and order conservative tyrants are preferred to the chaos and anarchy of progressive demagogues!

        • if only “constructionists” put the same effort into indoctrinating our school children that the alarmist warmunists did, eh? but the left killed off high school classes on “western civilization” for a reason, now didn’t they.

        • As far as the Constitution goes, the world really hasn’t changed all that much. The reason people should agree with a document written over 200 years ago is because said document is the product of the study of thousands of years of human history. It lays out the structure of the government, outlines the specific powers the government has, and then also includes a list of ten initial amendments that protect individual liberties.

          Young people who say that the Constitution must be outdated, when you ask them about how they would “upgrade” it, usually they respond with ideas that are not grounded in any logic whatsoever, or that have long been shown to result in tyranny and misery.

          • Actually there was a very major change to the Constitution, the 17th Amendment. In the original Constitution Senators were appointed by the States to represent their State in the federal government. Since they were not to be directly elected by the people their term was set at 6 years. The people are represented by the House of Representatives and those representatives are directly elected by the people and the term was set at 2 years. The Founding Fathers recognized the fickleness of the people in a direct election hence the difference in term lengths. It is easier to correct a mistake every 2 years (AOC being a prime example) than one that would take 6 years. The 17th changed the way Senators were chosen, now by direct election of the people so that they also represent the people in the federal government leaving no one to represent the States. This one amendment has consolidated power into the federal government and done away with representation of the States at the federal level.

        • Jagger boy ” Why should people….have to agree…

          Because they have no wisdom, no life skills, no judgment and most important they lack Critical Thinking Skills manifested by the diarrhea coming out of your mouth and keyboard.

          f you don’t agree move to Venezuela…..in fact we’ll start a Go Fund Me site for your departure!!

        • Rhys:
          The Declaration of Imdependence and the Constitution reflect principles, which are timeless. Very few things in them were written for the particular time and since they reflect unchangable human nature they are just as valid today as they were in the 1700’s.

          It is the “Progressive” conceit, and you are obviously a Progressive, that humanity is perfectable, that we can, in fact, make “progress” towards an ideal, unfallen state “if only….” The writers of the Declaration and the Constitution knew that this was not true, so they wrote, as best they could, a document that would allow maximum freedom while limiting the amount of damage that people like yourself could do.

          It is an unfortunate truth that the default state for human societies seems to be the feudal hierarchy, with an enlightened “elite” lording over the serfs and peasants. Why this is is complex, but ultimately it could probably be traced back to the postulates of Gnosticism, which can be defined as the default religion for humanity.

          Progressivism, when examined closely and boiled down to its basics, is nothing more than an attempt to reestablish a feudal state, the very thing that our predecessors revolted against!

          “Most commenters have no concept of the implications of freedom….” To the contrary, we understand that given human nature, perfect freedom is not possible. Attempts to establish that, a Gnostic thought if ever there was one, can only result in anarchy, which every human society in history has sought to avoid like the plague! Anarchy, ironically, inevitably devolves into the very “strong ruling elite” feudalism that the original promoters of “perfect freedom” sought to avoid.

          Rather, our Founding Fathers sought to maximize freedom, while constraining governments’s natural feudalistic tendencies. Yes, this does constrain some people’s behavior, but then this is usually for the better.

          See “Gnostic America” by Pr. Peter Burfeind, http://www.gnosticamerica.com/
          and “Explaining Postmodernism” by Stephen Hicks, http://www.stephenhicks.org/explaining-postmodernism/

          • Paul of Alexandria – February 18, 2019 at 6:37 am

            It is an unfortunate truth that the default state for human societies seems to be the feudal hierarchy, with an enlightened “elite” lording over the serfs and peasants.

            RIGHT YOU ARE, and me thinks the most recent example of “defaulting” to a feudal hierarchy with the appointed “elites” in control of the European Union ….. and its lording over the serfs and peasants of all member countries. At least enough of the English awoke from their “slumber” to vote for Brexit before it was too late.

        • Rhys Jaggar – February 18, 2019 at 1:17 am

          No American chooses to be born in America, they just are.

          Rhys J, iffen you were born in America then given the fact that one of your “inalienable rights” permits you to sue your biological parents, …. if it makes you unhappy, …. for their dastardly act of birthing you without first getting your permission to do so, ……. then do it, DO IT, sue them.

          There is another UNHAPPY 17-year-old in St-Louis, MO, that just sued his parents for being born “white”.

          To be told you must live unquestioningly values you played no part in shaping is the apotheosis of slavery, the absolute antithesis to being born with inalienable rights.

          R Jaggar, I hate to tell you this but those “inalienable rights” you speak of does not permit you to incite or engage in acts of anarchy, rioting, terrorism, etc., anytime that you are in a p-faced mood.

          To wit:

          In the Declaration of Independence Thomas Jefferson wrote that all men are “endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable rights” including “life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness.”

          And iffen your “happiness” is making someone else “unhappy” then you are in big trouble if caught doing so.

        • Rhys, by that logic, why should anyone be forced to obey any law that was passed before they were old enough to vote?

      • Only 10% may be able to get through its tedious, verbose language (10 % seems rather cynical), but Trump would never have been elected if only 10% embodied its principles.

        • Incision:
          To the contrary, it was the Principles of the Declaration and the Constitution that allowed us to vote him in!

    • Davis wrote:
      “Communists are like that, they want to control EVERY aspect of your life.”

      In Canada, we are farther along the road to total control by governments that the USA. It is our national mental illness.

      One of my good friends, a retired specialist medical doctor, has quit Canada for good. His reason? “Too many rules!”

      Others I know are preparing to leave, and others like me would leave, except that we have responsibilities here.

      Elected officials seem to think they have a mandate to impose their own personal objectives, often formulated out of ignorance and stupidity, onto everyone else. Prime Minister Trudeau is one such busybody, and his lack of education and real life experience is more and more obvious every time he opens his mouth. And we have many more mini-Trudeau’s in provincial and city governments and in the civil service.

      We need fewer rules and less state intervention into every aspect of our lives. I would vote for anyone who promised “Hey! I’ll do a whole lot LESS for you!”.

      • Over the years our elected representatives lost their way. Many no longer make any attempt to understand and truly represent their constituents. Instead they believe they were elected because they were the smartest person in the room. I have known more than a few that believed the rest of us were dumber than a box of rocks. It is how progressives start. Somehow they are smarter, wiser, etc, etc even though they regularly do really dumb things.

    • And of course they want us all to look like dear leader AOC (without cortex) Same haircut same glasses same body . They could even print a ‘green book’ which would be mandatory reading and the new constitution.
      But those close to her shout remember that dear leaders like that have NO friends. You will be eliminated if you get in dear leaders way.

    • Actually, your Congresses, Senates and Presidents have been controlling you in every important way already.

      1. They go to war all the time with no regard for public opinion.
      2. They completely control the media narrative, brainwashing you all in every way they see fit.
      3. They spy on you all in every way possible, online, using CCTV, bugging phone calls, tracking your movements. You are all high security prisoners not allowed any privacy.
      4. They rig stock markets, gold prices, bank interest rates, controlling economic sentiment, output and activity. None of you have any say in it.
      5. Etc etc.

      You thinking you actually have freedom is the biggest laugh of all….

      • In that you’re right. We The People gave our rights away the moment the not constitutional (not)Federal (but private) Reserve was enacted in 1913. Slavery was again introduced but with the difference that everyone was now a slave for ever.
        So don’t blame Congresses, Senates and Presidents because most of them are just puppets. Follow the yellow brick road.

      • I see that Rhys is determined to double down on stupid.

        1) Not if they want to stay in office. Like most leftists you can’t recognize the difference between the opinion and that of your friends, and the population as a whole.

        2) The government completely controls the media? That must explain why 90% of the coverage of Trump has been negative. Rhys is apparently one of those leftists who actually believes that unless you agree with him 100%, then you are being controlled by someone evil.

        3) Do you have some evidence for your belief that the government spies on each of us all day long? Or is that just what the voices in your head have been telling you?

        4) They rig the stock market and gold prices? Really? Would you care to explain the mechanism by which this is done? Do all the governments of the world conspire to do this, or does the US get to set all prices by itself?

    • As a foreigner it is pretty clear then that the US Deep State are all Commies. You Americans have to control the whole world and will not stop warmongering until you do.

      Cuba, Nicaragua, Venezuela, Ukraine, Syria, North Korea, Russia, China right now.

      Any mentally subnormal idiot who says Russia is anything but a low tax capitalist Republican wet dream is off with the fairies. But you have to destroy them. Because they refuse to submit to you like an EU vassal.

      China may have a one party state, but the Communists are now capitalists and billionaire businessmen abound in China just as in the US.

      Your nation is about conquest, not about Freedom.

      Just saying.

      • “Your nation is about conquest, not about Freedom.”

        The United States is about protecting itself from murderous bullies, and sometimes “conquest” is required to accomplish that goal. The U.S. only “conquests” them until they cry uncle, then we make peace and give them lots of money.

        The U.S. has no desire to destroy Russia or China, but we are not going to be bullied by them, either. If they place nice, we will play nice. Currently, neither one of them is playing nice, although they may be playing nicer than they were in the recent past.

        The United States isn’t looking for trouble, the United States is looking to stop trouble. You don’t cause any trouble, then you have nothing to worry about from the United States.

        • “The U.S. only “conquests” them until they cry uncle, then we make peace and give them lots of money.” Yep, which is more destructive of a country, bombing it or deluging American “culture” on it? Hmmm. And now we have run into the situation where they are more angry about us spending money on them than they were about us attacking them. Some people you just can’t please.

      • Rhys,

        Your incoherence is startling. I’ve read about individuals with such fanciful viewpoints, but I’ve never run into one personally.

        Whereas I believe there’s a reasonable case to made that perhaps Americans are too quick to pull the trigger, literally, I think that’s a far cry from warmongering.

        But, everyone’s entitled to their own opinion. I salute your dedication to such a factually baseless worldview.

        Cheers.

        rip

        • Although – ironically – if we’re talking globalists using the US as a vehicle, he’s not all wrong – he’s just typically laying the blame at the wrong feet – probably deliberately.

          Just saying.

        • I want the direction to the reality he lives in so I know how to avoid ever arriving there as, from the sounds of it, it’s not a very pleasant place to live.

    • But first they want your money:
      “But one has to be clear: we are effectively redistributing world wealth through climate policy. One has to free oneself from the illusion that international climate policy is environmental policy. This has almost nothing to do with environmental policy”.

      Source: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ottmar_Edenhofer

      I have seen treason executions for less..

    • Denaturing a protein means to destroy its complex 3D conformation, a conformation held together with H2O and 150 mM Na and 10 mM K cellular concentrations. Increasing that ionic strength does not denature the protein.
      Salting does not “denature” the protein. Salting produces a hypertonic solution around the meat made of muscle cells. The resulting osmotic pressure drives the water out of them, into the inter-cellular spaces to make them “juicer.” The steak muscle cells shrinks in size as it gives up “juices” to enhance the flavor. Anyone who has ever cooked a hamburger patty on a grill should also realize heat drives the water out of the meat cells and causes it to shrink (while also melting the fat to a liquid, making them very tasty and yummy).
      Denaturing a protein either requires heat (the most common method, as in turning an egg white opaque with heat) or removal or interruption of the Van der Waal or ionic/electrostatic forces that holds protein conformations, usually with an agent like formamide or high molar urea solutions.

      • I repeated one explanation that I heard. There are some things that don’t make sense and are likely incomplete about this. I believe that salt certainly will “pull” water from cells and seems to open grains within the meat from shrinkage as you say. But one can find claims that salt does denature proteins. https://www.quora.com/How-does-salt-concentration-denature-proteins

        My intention was to share this technique that I have found is beneficial to BBQ quality so that we can do our part to consume the scourge we call beef.

        • Salting doesn’t by itself denature proteins anymore than your swimming in the salty ocean (or the Dead Sea, or the Great Salt Lake for that matter) causes you to turn into a mush pile of cells ready to be eaten (it doesn’t obviously).

          But add increasing amounts of heat above ~125 F and you’ll begin to fall apart. (Who doesn’t love a perfectly slow-cooked beef or pork ribs where the meat is just falling off the bone as you savor the flavor, or the same for perfectly done buffalo chicken wings?)

          Salting a piece of muscle tissue (meat) simply causes the cells to shrink as they release water into the intercellular spaces due to osmotic pressure, making the meat appear to be “juicy.” Simultaneous cooking (i.e. adding heat) turns the red hemoglobin and myoglobin (oxygen transporting molecules) proteins brown as they are denatured (lose their conformation that imparts their iron-dependent spectral absorption characteristics) . Slowly the meat gets juicy and turns from red to brown. Continued cooking (over-cooking) of course dries out the meat (a de-hydration of the cells, leaving behind only the base proteins, fats, and carbohydrates, this along with a high salt concentration greatly retards bacterial and fungal growth) and turn the meat into a leather-like form. We call this jerky. Salt and sun-dried, or salt and low heat oven dried to make jerky. (it’s called “jerky” because pulling and pounding (with rocks or hammers) the meat strips breaks open the cells, helping to release the water so the meat can quickly dry in the sun.)

          Many recipes and experienced chefs caution against putting any salt (other than a sprinkling) on meats in preparation for cooking as this can make them dry out too quickly before the heat has had a opportunity to do its job on the fats (melting) and proteins (denaturing).

          There very much is a lot of very hard biochemistry behind the making the perfect meat and vegetable or dessert meal that experienced chefs have perfected without even knowing the science behind why they do what they do. They just know through passed-down recipes and their own experience what works with out knowing the “why.”

          • Slowly the meat gets juicy and turns from red to brown. Continued cooking (over-cooking) of course dries out the meat ……

            People shouldn’t be buying expensive “red” meat if they are only going to “overcook” it until it turns brown and all its juices dry out …… so that they HAVE TO ADD enough spices, sauces, mustard, catsup, etc., to make it tasty enough to eat.

      • Joel,
        Notwithstanding your “causes it to shrink” comment ( a phrase no man want to hear), salt enhances sweet flavors and suppresses bitterness.

    • Actually, bashing it with a mallet also tenderises the meat too! Many years ago, I worked in a butchers shop and saw a tenderising machine. You had to make sure you carefully dropped the meat in to the machine making sure your hand was well away from the rollers otherwise you would lose you whole arm before the machine could be turned off.

      • Bashing the meat with a meat hammer breaks open the cells and mechanically breaks down the connective tissue (the fascia). This both releases water, physically breaks the fascia, it also releases collagenase enzymes from cells to help break-up collagen intercellular connections in the tissue. Letting the meat sit for an hour (in the frig if you prefer) or so after “tenderizing” allows the enzymes time to work. During this tenderization process throwing in some favored herbs and spices helps to produce the desired flavor too.

      • “Actually, bashing it with a mallet also tenderises the meat too!

        And I think you also missed out on some redundancy opportunities too as well.

        [Congratulations! You’ve officially made the mods laugh today. 🙂 -mod]

  3. Grass fed humans shall make up for the large quantities of lost gas from the proposed reduction in the herds of cattle..

    • Hopefully humans will eat the grass, right? Because if they don’t, and there is no livestock or wild herbivores (no difference between cattle and buffalo, in the emitting gases dept.—they even interbreed) to eat the grasses, fire will take care of the excess. At catastrophic levels. Just curious, do huge, uncontrollable grass and brush fires emit any unwanted gases? How about when they burn for weeks? Which, of course they will, because there will be no way to control them.

    • Yep, when I’m asked what I mean by the term “phony-socialist” to describe certain politicians, I usually do it in three words with the term “Animal Farm Pigs”. Most have read it.

      I think OAC hasn’t aspired to that level of swamp-dwelling yet though. She’s just an “uneducated-socialist wannabe”, hence her being disliked by her own party in some elitist quarters.

  4. Would animal environmentalists support the return to the free ranging huge herds of millions of buffaloes that existed before shooting them began?

    • Yes, they conveniently like to ignore the fact that much land has no other suitable agricultural use. In the UK the equivalent ‘dead’ land is the uplands grazed by sheep and deer.

      Much of this is an unholy alliance of convenience between the global warmers and militant vegetarians/vegans who wish to force their lifestyles on others, whether it is good for us or not. The BBC is also giving them lots of free advertising, aided and abetted by militant medical professionals who always like to tell us what to eat (until they change their minds in a decade or two because they were wrong the first time around).

      • They love to pick on man’s cattle farming, but would they hold themselves responsible for exterminating every ruminant in Africa, South America, Siberia etc..? Surely they gotta go the whole hog.

      • I am afraid you are completely ignorant as to what is possible in Uk in the absence of sheep and deer.

        Organisations like Trees for Life are starting to regenerate a Caledonian Forest and to do so requires a prevention of deer eating young saplings before they fully establish. They fence off areas like in Glen Affric and 30 years on it is pretty clear that trees can thrive, birds return and an ecosystem 100 times richer than sheep plus deer can thrive in Scottish upland areas.

        Of course, the rich shooting fraternity cannot bear to hear things like that, as they could not bear to have a country solely devoted to their pleasures.

        But the evidence is in that remaining in a sheep plus deer scenario is a choice, not an ecological inevitability.

          • Rhys Jaggar, deer are “browsers” …… and neither deer or birds can survive in a forest setting of 30 year old trees.

        • Hi Rhys,

          I am very interested in your responses here as I certainly believe there is space for more than just sheep in the Scottish Uplands. However, you are tending towards unrealistic idealism that is not immediately economic or practical. There may well be some validity in your criticism of the USA and it’s constitution but change must follow sense and logic or it will become mired in political division. As your interest seems to be upland UK agriculture please suggest how to economically change from meat production to the wooded Affric-can idyll you describe. Land ownership and choice of land use is already complex in the UK, what reigime or incentive would you suggest as a means to sensible and logical change? Thank you.

        • Rhys Jaggar, I don’t think I am “wholly ignorant” of “what is possible” on upland UK land.
          I think you are are just being somewhat “wholly pedantic”. We could use that land for farming tiger prawns if we wished, but that does not mean it would be economically viable either now or in the near future.

      • Id much rather see cattle and sheep grazing freely than jammed into stinking filthy feedlots
        and their poop falling to the ground gets taken down by dungbeetles and fertilises deeply and safely
        mixed farming offers a sane and healthy solution to everything whereas monocropping industrial scale only benefit a few, and mainly big aggri

      • Somebody out there wants a dwindling population of docile, infertile, fat and sick population with deficiency diseases and shrinking brains. Gee, I wonder why . . . !

      • BBC is militarized extreme left wing propaganda. It literally is avoid of any connection to reality or reason for that matter.
        The thing that makes me still chuckle is the attendees list of the BBC meeting where they decided their future stance on Global Warming. One of the attendees was .. “BBC’s head of comedy”.. I kid you not. What a bunch of sick extreme left wankers.

  5. From the article:

    “building a more sustainable food system that ensures universal access to healthy food.”

    It’s called jobs, also known s low unemployment at decent wages, in areas such as manufacturing and construction.

    The other thing that cracks me up is just imagining the red ears, with smoke coming out of them, of the anti-large scale livestock production activists as they sit in their cubicle waiting for the weekend so they can protest treating cattle like cattle.

    Of course we shouldn’t be cruel, but don’t you think that if man-eating tigers could figure a way to pen us up for dinners on demand they would have already been doing it?

    • We already have universal access to healthy food.
      It’s called the free market.
      Thanks to the free market, that healthy food is also a lot cheaper than anything in these socialists plans.

      • Yup, yup, yup. But you can’t buy the food you need, want, or like without a job.

        Without a job, you settle for whatever you can get. And vote for the hand feeding you, natch.

    • Nor do tigers, indeed most carnivores, wait until their downed prey are dead. Eating downed live critters ensure it will die somewhat soon, and ensures the carnivore eats it’s share of the kill before contenders show up.

  6. When government controls energy production/consumption and healthcare, it controls everything. Control of healthcare leads to control of what people eat and drink. (E.g., if you eat red meat (or smoke), you will not get treatment for cancer.)

    • Oh, hell no.

      The way they do this is through taxes, making it too expensive to fly, drive, AC and heat your home, and eat meat. But they will be the leaders government, and the taxpayer will foot their expenses. Private and military jets. Limos with drivers. Housing allowances. Free meals.

      Same as in any other dictatorship.

      • In their world there will be NO taxpayer to foot their expenses. You can’t steal from those who have nothing. The US will become green North Korea style.

  7. It’s a trick…..after her, Waters, Omar….forget it the list’s too long

    …Biden will look like a hard core conservative

    • Biden gave a speech in Europe in which he declared that America is an embarassment.
      Such speech will get set to racing the blood of all European socialists. However he just cost himself any chance at the American presidency.
      Perhaps he can do like the Dixie Chicks and find a second career.

      • “Biden gave a speech in Europe in which he declared that America is an embarassment.”

        Biden is the one who is the embarassment.

        If Joe Biden decides to run for president this time, one thing we will need to have cleared up is whether he had any involvement in trumping up charges on Donald Trump in order to prevent him from getting elected, and the effort at ousting Trump after he was elected.

        These FBI guys and Justice Department people didn’t just come up with this effort to overthrow Trump on their own. They all have something in common: A boss named Barack Obama.

        When will someone ask Obama and Biden about their involvement in this Treason against the American people and their form of government? We know Obama was briefed on this and presumably so was Bidan, but noone is asking them about it. Yet.

        Obama and presumably Biden coordinated the law enforcement and intelligence agencies of the United States in an effort to unlawfully prevent Trump from being elected and unlawfully attempted to frame him for a crime and get him ousted from the presidency. And this effort is ongoing.

        It’s Treason! Yes, I know treason has a technical meaning, it also has a common meaning that everyone knows and that’s the way I’m using it. Obama and Company committed Treason against the People of the United States. Making sure Socialism continues in the United States was their goal. And still is.

        If these people are not publicly punished for this treason, then expect it to happen the very next time a dishonest Democrat president gets in office. Why wouldn’t they? There’s nothing to stop them from using the power of the government to keep themselves in power. And the next time, they will have learned their lesson and will make sure there won’t be a future Trump go come along and save us from this ultimate power grab.

        The New U.S. Attorney General needs to hold these people to account. Else, we lose our Republic.

  8. Agree our pigs have the power of reason so they shouldn’t be on our dinner table.
    The balance is left-wing bull . . .
    The ‘health food’ industry was started in the USA by Seventh Day Adventists (primarily Ellen White and John Kellogg).
    Credible accounts of people deciding to be vegetarian go back over 500-years.

    • Warren,
      Further than 500 years, Hinduism has promoted vegetarianism for thousands. But choosing for yourself is one thing, forcing it on a population is another.

  9. I thought AOC had withdrawn her New Green Deal.

    In Canada, PM Turdeau Jr. has introduced a new national food guide. link I think it accomplishes much of what AOC is proposing.

  10. “Democrats and environmentalists that endorse the Green New Deal — every Democratic senator running for president in 2020 cosponsored the bill “

    Those so-far declared Democrats for the Democratic Party 2020 nomination … not a one, has any chance against Trump.
    Pochantas, Veggy-burger Booker, Kammi “I love criminals” Harris, Kristen “weather-vane” Gillibrand, Tulsi “Hulu-girl”Gabbard, ad nauseum. They are all big freaking ego-driven jokes. Jokes.

    Let me repeat that… not one of those so far declared has any chance against Trump. Let them spew their nonsense, their anti-capitalism, their anti-fossil fuel BS, their “we need to stop eating meat” garbage. Let them keep going. Never interrupt your enemy when he/she is making mistakes.

    • After the Super Delegate/Bernie fiasco where Bernie would win a primary but all the Delegates went to Hillary, the Dems had to scrap their traditional mode of appointing their chosen candidate using Super Delegates.

      What to do? Ah! The Republican splitter strategy, which was designed to give Jeb! (Please clap) the nomination seems to be just the ticket to allow Dems to seemingly pick their next Presidential candidate by the will of the voters in the party… not!

      The “Chosen One” won’t announce until July/August. These early entrants either are in on the splitter strategy and trying to collect some dough or are clueless about the strategy and don’t realize that the YSM will take them out at the appropriate time.

      We just don’t know who the Dem “Chosen One” is at this point, but it’s dollars to doughnuts that the Dem party voters won’t be picking the nominee.

      • Yeah but the splitter strategy can back fire on them.
        It can rip their party apart long the special interest divides. The longer each of the candidates lasts the more disgruntled the various blocks will be.
        We may get to see that sociological test discussed on the earlier thread put to the test in real live.
        I mean the one about the $100 split where one side screws it for both because they deem it unfair.
        One never knows.

        michael

      • What to do? Ah! The Republican splitter strategy, which was designed to give Jeb! (Please clap) the nomination seems to be just the ticket to allow Dems to seemingly pick their next Presidential candidate by the will of the voters in the party… not!

        Yeah, that worked out very well for President Jeb!… oh wait, Jeb! never made it to the end of primary season, having dropped out after a miserable showing in the first few primaries.

  11. A cow cannot belch out more “carbon” than it takes in.

    Most is actually converted to flesh, which becomes food as part of the normal carbon cycle.

    A cow, a pig, a hen, etc etc, are all CARBON NEUTRAL

    • Oh, but the Carbon comes out as evil methane. Never mind that the cow burps are small compared to the termite burps!
      Termites: upwards of 150 million tons of methane per year. (estimates vary considerably)
      https://www.iceagenow.info/termites-produce-co2-year-living-combined/
      https://agupubs.onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/pdf/10.1029/98GB02266
      Cattle, worldwide, perhaps 100 million tons. (It’s really hard to find hard numbers, https://www.scienceabc.com/nature/cows-contribute-global-warming-cars.html was the best I could find).

      Then, of course, there are the other natural sources.

    • A) All food is carbon neutral, all the carbon in food can only come from CO2 in the air. Diet cannot possibly alter the carbon cycle.

      B) The symbiotic microbes in ruminant animals that produce methane while helping break down cellulose are similar to the ones in the soil that do the very same thing. I would suspect very little difference in methane emission from a field of grass whether large animals eat it or it is all consumed by soil microbes. (Grain fed beef produce little methane BTW)

      C) Using FF to intensify farming increases yield, decreasing acreage thus reducing the human footprint on habitat.

      The “green” attack on meat does not appear to have a sound scientific basis.

  12. Gang Green is always about control.
    Now you will notice the chosen ones show zero self control,but are absolutely certain that they and only they shall control all the “little people”.
    Stupid evil persons shall always walk amongst us,however civilization falls when the useless,clueless and greedy band together to “correct” the behaviour of all the productive people they freeload off of.

    There is no cure for stupid.
    But you never give stupid the keys to your car.

    Rudyard Kipling; “When the Saxon began to hate” wrote of this ,as human nature does not change, we have tolerated the idiocy of the chosen ones for far too long,the foundations of civil society now appear to be crumbling.
    Funny how you cannot eat what no one bothered to grow.

  13. Methane is the greenhouse gas from cows, basically the same as natural gas, chemically CH4. Unlike CO2 it is not a stable chemical but combines with oxygen in the air, with a half-life of only about 7 years, to form stable compounds CO2 (carbon dioxide) and H2O (water vapor). The CH4 in the atmosphere from all sources has only increased less than 6% since 2000 according to Mauna Loa data. And the 2018 value is only 1.86 parts per billion while CO2 is 408 parts per million.

    • Richard, your comments only tend to underscore, IMO, the general dubiousness of practically *all* the assumptions made in the course of regular “greenhouse” theory. While I know that gases like CO2, methane or whatever *do* have infrared absorption/emission properties — I wouldn’t dispute that — it’s all the *other* assumptions that Arrhenius made originally, circa 1900 (like the supposed feedback connection between CO2 and H2O), that seem doubtful to me.

      As you say, the concentration of methane is less than that of CO2. However, if theorists are just “back of the enveloping” as far as the initial importance of some very low level in either case, why almost *any* concentration could be assigned some special importance! Want to say that water vapour isn’t so important in causing climate, because it’s a “condensing” type of gas, while CO2 and methane are much more important as “non-condensing”, well there you go, just assume that, right? By the same kind of “logic”, if making 2 ppm of methane seem just as important as 400 ppm of CO2 is what’s on the “back of the enveloper’s” plate, then why, “bazinga” that’s on too, yeah, that’ll swing the activists’ heads around!

      My apologies in advance to any reasonable sounding “lukewarmer” theorist(s). It’s just that the whole GHG, “Green House Gas” theory setup just smells of odourized methane — as an unproven hypothesis from the beginning of the twentieth century to now. This is part of the struggle, I suppose, that we have a sort of “conventional’ hypothesis that can be turned any which way to suit a sense of alarm, about anything and everything that we might emit into the atmosphere as a whole.

  14. I’ve got a feeling I’ve seen this movie before, I’m thinking of Shane or any number of westerns of the ’40s and 50’s based on the ‘cattlemen vs sodbusters’ trope:

  15. Actually, in a bizarre way this makes sense. There won’t be any way to cook food. Fossil fuels and burning wood will be banned, and not enough energy will be produced by renewables to waste on cooking. Eating raw fruits, vegetables, and nuts is far safer than consuming raw meats.

    So they really do have your best interest at heart (sarc to the Nth+1).

  16. “Last week, T-bone steaks were 70¢ a lb. in Lethbridge and sirloin was 75¢ in Ottawa. This was a third less than New Yorkers were paying, but Canadian housewives thought the prices outrageous. In Ottawa they paraded with a papier-mâché cow, demanding a rollback.”
    This was not yesterday.

    “They would certainly protest more loudly if prices jumped again—as prices certainly would if the government lifted the embargo on beef shipments to the U.S. Yet cattlemen in Calgary, selling choice steers for record prices as high as $23.70 a cwt., griped because…”
    https://earthground.wordpress.com/2017/11/28/shoplifting-vs-pricefixing/

  17. “supporting family farming,”

    My grandparents raised a passel of kids on a “family” farm.
    They could not interest any of those, as young adults, to stay as a “family” farmer.
    About 1945, that farm ceased to exist along with thousands of others during those years and into the 1950s.

    Economics, urban amenities, good jobs, tax laws, and regulations have done away with the nostalgic family farm.

    • They could not interest any of those, as young adults, to stay as a “family” farmer.

      Same story here. The kids scattered all across the country. Dad always wanted to go back and live on the farm, but he didn’t particularly want to farm it. When gramma needed full time care, the farm passed to other hands. I inherited the AKSARBEN plaque she got when the farm had reached the 100 year mark under our family.

    • One thing that Bob Dole tried to legislate unsuccessfully that would helped save family owned farms (or other long held family assets) from being taxed in oblivion by death taxes was the idea of indexing the basis for capital gains. I suppose it failed because it threatened one of the advantages government gains from inflationary money policy.

  18. The resolution calls for “supporting family farming,” “investing in sustainable farming and land use practices that increase soil health” and “building a more sustainable food system that ensures universal access to healthy food.”

    They’ll eventually find reason to shut down those family farms.

    I’m happy for Cortez and her followers to lead the way by stuffing a cork in each end.

  19. Effectively the Left’s equivalent of Mao’s Great Leap Forward.

    Just as Mao discovered (after the fact) that steel could not be produced in sufficient quantities using backyard furnaces, the Left has yet to discover that Industrial Agriculture is what is feeding the world. And cannot be done in sufficient quantities to feed everyone.

  20. BTW, the image of Wolfgang Puck pouring liquid nitrogen over the Kobe beef piqued my interest. I’m a foodie and one of those amateur chef wannabees so I searched on liquid nitrogen and Kobe beef.

    Anything more than this mention will just steer comments OT and I discourage any replies, but for other foodies and/or chef wannabees here, you should look into it. That’s all I’m sayin’.

  21. Yeah, nobody is taking my beef away. Beef is one of the greatest foods on the planet, the absolute supreme meat of the meats. All meats bow down in awe of the Almighty Beef. If the Left thinks banning guns is hard, just try seeing what happens if they start trying to take away hamburgers, steaks, Hillshire Farm sausages, etc…

    • One word…. ribs. Or three… baby back ribs… as the lobsters raise a defiant claw.

      FOOD FIGHT!
      (You started it, Kyle. We’ll probably both be sent to Dean Wormer’s office. 😜)
      .
      .
      Seriously, our infallible, wise, omnipotent overlords have already determined that a bowl of gruel three…nah… two times a day is all that we need or deserve. If we can’t get by on that, then we probably weren’t much use to the glorious state anyway.

      Beef? It’s what’s for dinner only a memory.

  22. The deal with these communistic idiots is that they never think about unintended consequences. The all-out ban on meat consumption would be devastating for wild populations of edible animals all over the country. People would just resort to eating fish, deer, wild hogs, and other available animals as a substitute until all of those native populations are wiped out.

  23. The GND is an unprecedented grab for power and control in the U.S. which, in my opinion, is not at all dissimilar from the radical totalitarian ideologies of the past, including communism. It represents the Left’s increasing intolerance for economic freedom and their lack of control over the lives of individuals. One could almost argue that one of the only things missing from the GND is the suspension of human rights. So why did we even fight a Cold War against far-left ideology?

    The GND is the product of an ideological mindset which appears to have largely rejected the progress this country has made in its history that has brought us to the current level of wealth, prosperity and quality of life we now enjoy. The climate alarmist narrative is merely the icing on the cake of environmentalist ideology — an attempt to pound the last nail in the coffin of that progress. Just keep turning the screw tighter and tighter until success is achieved.

    With socialism blended into it as the replacement for the free market, the GND represents the merging of far leftist ideology with radical eco-ideology. It is already being referred to as eco-socialism. Govt acquires the power and control of Big Brother in George Orwell’s dystopian novel, and the warnings Orwell left behind are increasingly just faded, distant and forgotten memories among GND supporters.

    But having said all of this, it is comforting to know that the GND’s chances of finding it’s way into law are very slim (from what I’ve read). I recall reading that the Senate (with its Republican majority) is going to vote on it sometime in the near future where it is highly likely to fail. GND supporters are already whining about the upcoming vote (it’s too soon!). We can only keep our fingers crossed that it does not resurface sometime in the future if and when the Democrats get complete control of Congress as well as the White House. God help us if it does.

    • …. and Vladimir Vladimirovich is laughing his head off standing at the front door of the lunatic asylum.

  24. This is about taking resources away from political opponents. People in the beef industry tend to be conservative. Same as the coal industry.

  25. I am involved in research projects to measure fugitive emissions, including methane, from livestock farming operations, such as dairy farms. Actually cows produce more of their methane from burping, not farting.

  26. When your Founding Fathers created the Electorial College , it was a attempt to prevent the najority voting in the towns and cities, who had largely forgotten where their food came from, to tell them the country folk what to do.

    Here in ,South Australia its called a “Gerrymanda”and its recognised as not democratic, but in we had such a Gerrymander way back, and foe some 26 years this State boomed.

    Then we had Democracy take over, and its been downhill ever since.

    MJE

    • Pretty much, yes. What people tend to forget is that by the Constitution the individual states are supposed to have the most power, not the central Federal government. It’s actually the states that elect the president, not the population as a whole. In 2017 the Electoral College worked precisely as designed, keeping a few large cities, namely New York, LA, and Chicago, from overriding the rest of the country.

  27. The Grey New Deal is a blight on humanity, community, and the environment.

    Perhaps it’s a neural dysfunction.

    That said, artificial B-12 supplements? No thanks. Nature’s rules. They’ll have to take my North Sea salmon out of my cold, dead hands. Perhaps a New York-style strip steak, medium-rare. Thanks!

    Oh, and cheese. Goat cheese!

  28. One virtue signaller said: “… we need to stop the industrial overproduction of food ….” Then a vegan politician said: “… can’t sustain billions of people consuming industrial produced animal agriculture ….” These 2 should compare notes.

    • No, they are perfectly in sync with the ultimate goal of it all, reduce the human population to 200-300 million maximum. Every so often one of them lets it slip and we get a glimpse behind the curtain. Very scared of the Utopia the left is defining for the rest of us. Starting to remind me of Logan’s Run.

  29. Why does this “New green deal” remind me of Mao’s “Great leap forward”, or Pol Pot’s “ Year zero”?

  30. In the film “Snowpiercer”, y’know that film where “scientists” try to stop “global warming” by spraying the atmosphere with a chemical. The “lower classes” were fed a “jelly”, as the film progresses, made out of cockroaches.

    And, of course, the train they are all on is powered by “perpetual motion”.

  31. For the Green New Deal to have any chance of working, there is going to have be a great deal of ‘controlled and banned ‘ things, for the peoples good of course. This will involve government involvement at all levels of people’s lives, from transport to food and accommodation.
    And of course to ensure the people understand the importance of ‘correct behaviour’ there will need to control of the media to ensure the ‘right message ‘ is heard .
    And sadly there will of course have to be ‘punishment ‘ for those that fail to show ‘correct behaviour ‘ a small price to pay for ‘saving the planet ‘
    If it all sounds very familiar that is because it is ‘familiar’ and it usual results in the building of walls not to keep people out but to keep them in .

  32. Alexandria Ocasio Cortez certainly is very intelligent, has great personality and is credit to the United States diverse politics, at least for the time being anyway.
    The fact that she is spectacularly wrong in most of her pronouncements, that is beyond of interest to most of her admirers, at least for time being.
    I’m sure that on the other side has many just as intelligent people of charisma and agreeable personality, so get them out on the public pulpit. If you don’t the USA conservatives are going to have a big problem on their hands. Good luck to her and those who oppose her. Bring in popcorn.

  33. “Livestock will be banned”
    “Say goodbye to dairy, to beef, to family farms, to ranches.”

    Here comes the sting, designed to inflict life long cullinary punishmen to their sworn enemy, the while male carnivourous conservative capitaist.

    Trump should introduce a vegetable tax in response and claim it’s to make sure these idiots pay more for the wall.

  34. The GND is also much MUCH more than energy and controlling what we eat.

    Here’s a few more:
    – “Profound” and “unprecedented” lifestyle changes on us earth killing middle class asses.
    – Creating an interdependent world (so we don’t blow each other up and hence, rich people can continue to enjoy their vast wealth)
    – Getting the middle class and poor to fund more government programs and overseas economic development programs. This then gets the rich off the hook of being taxed more for social programs and also benefits their bottom lines as they will move industries to these new nations/places that have new economic infrastructure completed (thanks to the middle class and poor in developed countries).
    – Global rationing of the world’s resources on a per capita basis.

    And there’s even more green goodies than this.

  35. Let the Dems self destruct. While there are plenty of sanctimonious people out there willing to have the federal government pass dictatorial laws, most people can see crazy.

  36. Since chicken is less expensive than beef most of the time, I have a bunch of chicken in the freezer, plus some beef and pork (ham, bacon). I have next to nothing in the way of junk food in my cupboards or fridge or freezer, so I don’t know what Ms. Babbling Brooks is talking about. I doubt that she has ever turned on a stove, cooked a full meal for anyone including herself, or had to prep anything more difficult than opening a box of cereal, if she even does that.
    When was the last time that person went grocery shopping? Did her own laundry? Made her own bed? Based on the level of pure ignorance she has publicly displayed, including that NGD idiocy, my guess is that she is so out of touch with the real world, she has no basis for any of her rather grandiose gobbledygook statements, all of which are meaningless, but definitely offer an implied threat.
    Oh, well, I still have two oil lamps that belonged to my great-great grandma out on the farm in the Niobrara cornfields. Maybe I should get Lehman’s catalog and buy a few more. I can get lamp oil at the hardware store, and my stove will light up with kitchen matches, so I can still cook.
    I swear, both of my cats have 100 times her IQ level.

  37. Anything from the left is always about control. Why anyone would consider any other aim or final gaol in leftist political machinations is beyond me.

    Wake up, people, the political left is humanity’s enemy and always will be.

  38. Don’t kid yourselves – it’s not just food.

    They’re also coming for your car, your house, your heat, your gun, your freedom of speech, your freedom to reproduce, and anything else that stokes their control-freak paranoia.

    And all they had to do was stoke up enough progressive hatred, so that all they had to do was position it against ‘the other side’ – progressive knee-jerk bigotry at its purest.

  39. Just for the record, … not only am I a former believer of human-caused global warming (as it used to be called), I also am a former vegetarian, who over the past ten years, re-introduced meat into my eating habits.

    I have no regrets on either account. I am much wiser now.

    CO2 is not evil.
    Meat is not evil.

    Eat some meat, and enjoy the heat (all fraction of a degree of it).

  40. Just wait till the GND meets IRS forms and regulations.

    Form AOC 1053 What did you eat last year?
    Form AOC 1078 How did you get to work last year? and Form AOC 1079 Did you still own a car last year?
    Form AOC 1080 Did you fly on an airplane last year? gliders exempted
    Form AOC 1083 Did you have lights on at you house last year?
    Form AOC 1089 Did you have a business interest in raising animals against their will?
    Form BHO 1040 Did you have Dem’s approved, overload health insurance last year?

  41. Let them eat (marijuana) cake …………..and other top priorities of the Dems to go along with their other main topic in craft brewery strategies.

  42. Before humans domesticated ruminants there were large herds of methane burping ruminants. Estimates of 30 million bison in the USA alone, not counting deer, elk, moose, antelope, etc. So sure manure ponds could be managed better but to eliminate or even greatly restrict raising cattle for food is nuts.

    It is my understanding India has as many or more cows than the USA. Please AOC go to India and demand they quit raising cows, slaughter them all.

  43. Question.

    I had a pork sandwich, do I need to commute to work to make up for it? Is there a form for that request yet or a fine?

  44. No cattle ranches means more soy bean farms and less bio diversity, no bugs and weeds for the few remaining wild critters to eat….they succumb to soy beans and house farms full of monkeys…

  45. Funny how these recommended nutrition guidelines copy what the Nazis had recommending to their population as “healthy diet”…

Comments are closed.