United Nations Secretary-General António Guterres said he’s cut back eating out at steak houses because of his concern over global warming.
Guterres said he “used to love steak houses but now only goes once every three months because livestock contribute significantly to warming,” The Associated Press reported Wednesday, paraphrasing his comments.
It’s unclear how often Guterres ate out at steak houses before warming worried him.
In that same interview, Guterres said global warming would be a “total disaster” if countries don’t cut greenhouse gas emissions fast enough. The U.N.’s latest climate report said emissions need to drastically fall by 2030 to avoid more than 1.5 degrees Celsius of warming.
Not meeting that goal “would mean a catastrophic situation for the whole world,” Guterres said.
In the interview, Guterres called for no more coal-fired power plants to be built after 2020 and a price on carbon dioxide emissions. Guterres wants to end all greenhouse gas emissions by 2050
Guterres sat down with the AP before heading to Pacific islands he said are being hardest hit by global warming. Guterres plans on using the “moral authority” of people on Fiji, Tuvalu and Vanuatu to convince larger countries to fight warming.
“We need to make people understand that this is not sustainable,” he said. “And the reason why I’m optimistic is that I feel that more and more people are convinced of that. And as more and more people are convinced of that, I believe governments will feel the need to increase their political will which at this present moment is still lagging behind.”
Secretary General of the United Nations Antonio Guterres speaks to Chinese Premier Li Keqiang (not pictured) during their meeting at the Diaoyutai State Guesthouse in Beijing, China, April 26, 2019. Parker Song/Pool via REUTERS.
Small island nations are often held up as being on the “front lines” of global warming. U.N. officials said sea level rise threatens to overtake islanders, turning them into “climate refugees” in the coming years.
However, a comprehensive 2018 study found roughly 89% of assessed islands were stable or increased in size, despite sea level rise.
“Importantly, islands located in ocean regions affected by rapid sea-level rise showed neither contraction nor marked shoreline retreat, which indicates that they may not be affected yet by the presumably negative, that is, erosive, impact of sea-level rise,” reads the study by University of La Rochelle researcher Virginie Duvat.
Has he ever paid for his own meal? That is the question for auditors and public interest.
I’ve cut back on steak, but not for climate reasons.
It’s just healthier as you get past age 50.
Now I do salmon and chicken more.
As for the Pacific islands Gutti is referring to, has any one of them had a problem yet with SLR?
From the load of fat on UN Chief António Guterres, I would say that he has been tucking away a fair few steaks at home even after giving up Steak Houses.
Ironically no, it’s not the steaks that made him fat; it’s probably the wine, potatoes, bread, and the deserts he eats WITH the steak.
Indeed. It’s usually the carbs that’ll do it.
So our UN chief is yet another of the “educated class” who believes less flatulence will fix the clouds. Has not Sir Gavin the Goddard poo-pooed this concept?
Not only is the methane of rot measured in insignificant parts per billion, once in the atmosphere it changes to carbon dioxide and water.
It’s really nothing more than a valid participant in the life cycle. Rejoice!…Nature works!
Canada’s forests absorb 27 times more carbon year than is produced by all Canadians. Here are the numbers:
Canada has 1000 million acres of forests. Each acre of forest sinks about 15 tons of carbon (dioxide) net per year. Each Canadian produces 15 tons of carbon (dioxide) per year, which is equivalent to about 1/2 acre of trees.
Thus Canada’s forests absorb as much carbon dioxide as produced by 1000 million Canadians. However, there are only 37 million Canadians.
Thus, Canada’s forest each year absorb 27 TIMES more CO2 than is produced by all Canadian’s.
As such, Canadians have a negative carbon footprint. Our footprint absorbs carbon dioxide.
Ferd, I understand the Vancouver port facility is the leading exporter of coal on the North American west coast. Shouldn’t the resultant “escaping” emissions be included in Canada’s carbon footprint? Or does China wear those shoes?
So what?
M.W.
By accepted international convention, the emissions from coal (and all fossil fuels) are credited with the country in which it is burned.
If your suggestion were to hold, then Saudi Arabia would be one of the world’s leading emitters. They aren’t. Their oil is burned in many different countries, and the emissions go to those countries that purchase that oil. And you don’t get to double count the emissions.
Nice try though.
Not just specifically fossil fuels, either. In the UK, the Drax wood-burning power station is slowly obliterating the east coast forests of the United States. Within the EU rules (following international convention) the resulting power is carbon neutral. The carbon cost of processing and transporting the pellets three and a half thousand miles is debited to the US, double whammy. Within 100 miles of Drax are two of the largest remaining coal reserves in the UK and the country is sitting on a potential 100 years plus of readily accessible fracked reserve, but the government has capitulated to a small, but highly active, collection of NGOs exerting green pressure. Exploration has virtually come to a standstill.
Joel, thanks for the reply.
Now I’m thinking there needs to be another carbon climate change bs category….
How about the “Exported Footprint”…the “EF” total would not place any weight on the exporter’s own footprint, however it would reveal the “hypocrisy” behind their claim of responsible carbon footprint behavior.
Sr. Guterres,
Next time you go to the steakhouse, we can carpool. Save on those extra emissions. ¿You are buying, verdad?
Su amigo,
Mumbles
P.S. I only WISH I could afford to go out for steak every 3 months.
The United States has 750 million acres of forests. Each acre absorbs 15 tons of CO2 per year, which is the same amount as each American emits per year.
Thus the forests of America each year absorb as much carbon dioxide as would be produced by 750 million Americans.
However the population of the US is only 350 million. Thus each American has a negative footprint. They absorb 2 TIMES as much carbon pollution as they produce.
From the looks of him, it is more likely his doctor told him to cut down on red meat. Since he was going to do it anyway, why not take advantage and try to look like you were walking the walk.
Unbelievable! I very much doubt he has EVER visited a steakhouse, at least since he attained his current exalted status – he is just trying to identify with the plebians. He jets (private, or slumming it in first class) around the globe completely detached from the realities the rest of humanity endures. I bet his airline meals are nothing like the ones we eat in cattle class. The UN is totally unaccountable, so the extravagant lunches and $300 a head dinners go unreported, meanwhile he comes out with this crap.
By the way, Mr Guterres, is that a disposable single use plastic water bottle you have there?
This guy is a blathering sandwich.
Every idiot that believes as he does should go on a starvation diet – and stay on it until they starve. That would “solve” the whole “problem” because the rest of us could then just go on with our lives unburdened with their propaganda.
First Evita, now Peron chimes in with more nonsense. What a UN over-privileged pair.
I only eat steak three times per week. Does that help?
I cant remember the last time i have been to a steak house. However, i do own 2 grills.
I feel terrible about the UN’s location in Manhattan. There is so much wealth and power concentrated that area. The United States is a first world power and doesn’t need the UN. President Trump should insist that it be relocated to a disadvantaged area that would greatly benefit from the economic activity the UN would bring. Someplace in central Africa, Malawi or Liberia maybe. It’s a simple thing that would improve lives in the region. I’m sure the UN ambassadors would rally behind such a proposal, it’s the right thing to do.
“United Nations Secretary-General António Guterres said he’s cut back eating out at steak houses because of his concern over global warming.”
So now he has his personal chef make more in his own home?
Saves on the “carbon” driving to said steak houses I guess.
I’m reminded of Obama’s “climate initiative” that included filling up your car tires and taking the golf clubs out of the trunk to improve mileage.
This isn’t even saving pennies against the national debt. It’s less than nothing. So many orders of magnitude below effective reductions that the only thing I can call it is “homeopathic”.
Tx for this. Just increases my loathing and detestation of the privileged plonkers in these institutions. Wanker!
Perhaps I could help the poor fellow out if he pays me to offset his steak consumption. It won’t be difficult because I never eat steak anyway. I can only afford it in cheap eateries where it always turns out to be tough as old boots. I just can’t afford the good restaurants where steak is actually edible. So if he pays me $1,000 a month, I will refrain from eating steak so that he can go to steakhouses with a clean conscience.
Does he have female, male flight attendants, or both?
I only eat at steak houses every three months also, but it’s not because of climate worries. It’s because of economic conditions. Govt raises my taxes so much that I only have about 50% of my income to work with. Inflation takes the rest of it.
I’ll have one tomorrow to compensate for him.
In my personal effort to stop global warming and prevent bovine flatulence from killing us all I have vowed to eat steak until evil cattle are no more. If I start a crowd funding site to cover the huge costs of steak for three meals per day will you guys help me pay for it? Since political experts only give us 12 more years, cholesterol is no longer a concern. Oh the sacrifices I am willing to make.
Last week the thermometer dipped to 21 degrees here, wiping out my apricot blossoms! I wish this guy would eat steak more often! We could use a little Global Warming!!
This is all a part of the rubbish that comes out of the UN and the IPCC.
So we kill off all of the domestic animals which we currently eat. Would it
make any difference, more grass available for other forms of life to eat
CO2 is the gas of all life, every form of life both needs it, and directly or
indirectly returns it as either methane, CO2 or oxygen.
MJE VK5ELL