Guest post by Jim Steele,
Published in the Pacifica Tribune January 15, 2020
What’s Natural?
No Meat for You!
New York City Mayor Bill de Blasio recently announced NYC’s New Green Deal and his plan “to save our earth”. He stated NYC will reduce beef purchases by 50% and phase out ALL purchases of processed meat by 2030. It’s not clear how he defines processed meats, but the World Health Organization defines it as “meat that has been transformed through salting, curing, fermentation, smoking, or other processes to enhance flavor or improve preservation.”
Processed meats evolved before the era of modern refrigeration for good reason. Salting, curing, fermenting, and smoking meat increased the shelf-life of a limited food supply and thus increased human survival. But now processed meats are demonized. Certainly, some chemical additives are unhealthy, but demonizing all processed meats is just wrong. With good labeling people can freely choose what foods they trust.
But de Blasio’s edict would mean any institution run by NYC will no longer serve chicken nuggets, hotdogs, sausages, bacon, pastrami, ham, baloney, salami, pepperoni, corned beef and jerky. Fresh beef meals will be cut by 50% to “save the planet’s climate” from cow farts. How far will these government actions go? Dairy cows fart too. Will milk, whip cream, cheese, yogurt and ice cream be next on the hit list? Will they later extend their ban to all of NYC? What if Mayor de Blasio ever became America’s president? Fortunately, de Blasio’s authoritarian actions are why so many Americans rightfully argue we need limited government!
There is no place for authoritarian diet control. We all experiment with our best personal diets. I went vegetarian for a few years. I liked learning to make tastier vegetables. But eventually I reverted to carnivorous ways. Most studies suggest our bodies evolved to eat both plants and meat, so I resent those who try to shame me for naturally eating meat. However, one PETA article did argue if you see dead animals on the side of the road, but are not tempted to stop and snack on them, you are naturally a herbivore. Really?
Nonetheless, vegetarians make a very valid point. Over-grazing has been bad for the environment. Studies of temperatures in Arizona and Mexico determined lost vegetation from overgrazing caused soils to dry, raising regional temperatures by as much as 7°F compared to un-grazed adjacent lands. Over-grazing converts biologically diverse grasslands into barren deserts. But counter-intuitively, without grazing animals, grasslands still convert to deserts. Grasslands benefit from natural grazing and “holistic grazing” has been shown to prevent “desertification”. Unfortunately, overzealous radical vegetarians don’t understand – holistic grazing is a win-win for the environment and meat eaters.
Grasses do not decompose immediately. Nutrients get locked up for years while the accumulating “thatch” blocks the sun and inhibits the growth of new grasses. Accumulating thatch also enhances wildfires. Grazing animals not only remove thatch, their manure freely fertilizes the soil and promotes next year’s growth. Holistic grazing has demonstrated if we mimic the natural migrations of huge herds, as in Africa’s Serengeti, we can prevent desertification. Overgrazing typically happens when herds are confined to small pastures, too small to support the cattle’s needs.
I encourage everyone to google Allan Savory’s hope-filled TED talk titled “How to Fight Desertification and Reverse Climate Change”. Savory is originally from South Africa. There, cattle were removed from lands destined to become National Parks and Savory was charged with studying the results. His studies revealed the park’s grasslands continued to degrade into desert despite removal of all cattle grazing. The “only” remaining explanation pointed to elephants. Regretfully he recommended culling elephants to sustainable levels. Such a recommendation was blasphemous, so government experts initiated another study. Unfortunately, government experts agreed. Too many elephants were ripping up vegetation. So, thousands of elephants were slaughtered. The result – the land continued to degrade from grassland to desert.
Savory eventually understood holistic grazing was the only solution. If cattle were managed to imitate natural grazing, the land could be restored because cattle grazing would remove thatch, freely fertilize the ground, and supply a protective layer of moisture-holding mulch. Holistic grazing reversed desertification and stopped excessive warming of surface temperatures caused by overgrazing. And holistic grazing increased the storage of carbon in the soil.
The anti-meat-eating crowd often argues eating meat is a shameful, immoral and inefficient use of calories. They argue meat provides only a small fraction of the calories we would otherwise obtain by directly eating the grains fed to cattle. But that is a narrow perspective. By raising cattle holistically on grasslands, we efficiently obtain calories and protein that we could never acquire otherwise from inedible grasses. Globally there are huge swaths of land unsuitable for growing edible plant food, and where human populations must totally rely on grazing animals for survival.
So, feel no shame! Meat eating is not the ticket to climate hell! Holistic grazing is a win-win for meat eaters and the environment.
Jim Steele is director emeritus of the Sierra Nevada Field Campus, SFSU and authored Landscapes and Cycles: An Environmentalist’s Journey to Climate Skepticism.
Grass grows by absorbing CO2 from the atmosphere. Left alone, it eventually dies and is broken down by bacteria into CO2 and methane. If instead a cow eats the grass, bacteria in it’s stomach breaks it down into CO2 and methane. The cow cannot make the grass into any more carbon than it has absorbed from the atmosphere. The ratio of the expelled gasses may differ a little.
THERE IS NO NET INCREASE OF CARBON.
Why not enjoy the delicious bovine by-products?
The Mayor has a good plan. Half the people that hate beef will eat grass and beans. The other half, that is the people that did not vote for de Blasio, will have access to the beef. Since the demand will fall so should the price.
God bless the stupid.
In mild protest at the laughable NYC political stupid-storm, I’m going to the shops right now to buy a couple of thick steaks, one of which is going to become a steak-heavy Asian stir-fry served on a bed of delicious long grain rice.
There will be wind.
I think this is something we can compromise on.
I suggest New York City stop serving meat to all prison inmates — it’s cruel to make them suffer all the ills that a meat diet brings after all. Then we can study how a strict vegan diet improves self-esteem, reduces aggression and stimulates higher brain functions, thus increasing the tendency to talk through conflicts instead of resorting to physical confrontation.
With no meat in their diet, inmates won’t need so much gym equipment. The space currently devoted to weightlifting gear can be used to provide Yoga classes.
And it’s especially cruel to all the people on public assistance to poison their bodies with processed meats, so limit EBT purchases to one or two meat servings a week and encourage healthier choices.
Likewise foodbanks should stop taking donations of meat products.
And to set a good example, the cafeterias serving the city council and all NYC employees should cut out, or cut way down on meat portions. No doubt the state of New York led by climate paragon Andrew Cuomo will be inspired to follow the city’s example.
And since the New York Times is in full support of this earth-saving measure, the entire editorial staff should immediately take a public “no meat” pledge.
This could be a good thing.
And after a few years, the prison population will drop drastically, so it’s a win-win, right? Except for those inmates that didn’t count on a death sentence, of course. Maybe before that happens one of them would sue under cruel and unusual punishment claims since vitamin B12 deficiency is quite a painful way to die.
Meat also has micronutrients that are either poorly available or unavailable in plants. See here. There’s no reasonable doubt that humans evolved eating meat.
Meat supplementation improves the cognitive, growth and behavioral development of poor children, see here.
Red Meat in Global Nutrition
Abstract
The influence of data and recommendations from developed countries on nutrition guidance has overshadowed recognition of the key micronutrients and protein contributed by red meat to the global food supply. Relative to the energy it contributes, the impact of red meat on the nutritional quality of the human diet via its contribution of protein and key micronutrients is under-appreciated. The current discussion will review red meat nutrient composition and global consumption rates and discuss the evidence underpinning current dietary recommendations. The beneficial role of red meat in reducing risk factors associated with noncommunicable disease in developed countries and improving the nutritional status of developing nations will also be reviewed.
Highlights
► Evidence supports the use of lean red meat to manage diet-related disease risk.
► Animal protein improves maternal and infant health globally.
► Meat and livestock contribute to nutrient adequacy and food security.
People who enforce abstinence from meat are especially harming the young, and corroding children’s ability to properly develop their bodies, minds, and behavior. Such people should be prosecuted for criminal negligence.
Eskimos and others arctic hunter gatherers were able to get all their nutrients from animal meat without eating vegetables
– Traditional Inuit food: Fish, seal meat/oil. That’s it! They have survived for generations w/o malnutrition. (Vegans on the other hand …) No veggies will grow in snow and ice. Something I tell vegans, when they tell me that humans are not suited to eat meat.
Humans are omnivores and evolved/were designed to eat meat. Eliminating meat from your diets forces you to add supplements to your diet, especially for the B vitamins. Veganism is especially unnatural.
No doubt many of us eat more meat than we probably should but that is a personal choice. Nobody has a right to tell us what to do with our bodies.
Agenda 30 wants to cull the herd. The “plant-based diet” with which the WHO is currently carpet-bombing the airwaves fits right in–may even be the deus ex machina. The “woke” activist (troublemaking) inclined bunch can feel all self-righteous and superior while kale-munching themselves into deficiency diseases, infertility, inflammation, depression and dementia. “Soy-boys” are unfit for military service, unlikely to sire offspring, less likely to want a physical job outdoors, docile and easily controllable, not least through the ubiquitous cell-phone “Matrix.”
In my neighborhood there are 2 kinds of people; the Spandex-and-Patagonia-clad virtue-signaling upper middle class, who conform to all the popular BS–and We Deplorables who actually do practical things, which are the things that make the world work for everyone. If the “wokesters” want to take themselves out of the gene pool through their sheer ignorance of everything natural and practical, fine by me!
Didn’t the NY City schools try something like this a few years back, radically restricting the choice for school lunches, “for the good of the children.” But the kids just stopped buying the new crappy food offerings, with most preferring to bring a PB&J sandwich from home. The schools had to drop their new policy, and go back to having pizza on the menu. I definitely recall something like that.
DeBlasio is a chip off the old Mike “No-32-oz-sodas” Bloomberg. In other words, a farging idiot.
They tried that in a school in Sweden a few years ago. The result was tired and cranky kids together with poorer learning …
Allan Savory’s hope-filled TED talk titled “How to Fight Desertification and Reverse Climate Change”.
—————————————————————————
Reverse climate change? Climate is a chaotic, non-linear system, it changes in multiple different ways, often simultaneously. What the heck does “reverse climate change” even mean?
Oh, you mean reverse global warming! But why would I even want to? Not to mention that it’s well beyond human abilities to reverse. Nature will get around top that in its own sweet time. Global warming is good. Global cooling is bad.
“How to Fight Desertification and Reverse Climate Change” : This guy is a complete idiot.
During the Holocene optimum (about 8000 years ago), the Sahara was almost nonexistent. It formed gradually because of the global cooling in progress since the Holocene optimum :
https://youtu.be/JcsSHPjdsOo
Nowadays, satellite data show a global greening of the planet during the last 40 years and this is particularly true in the sub-saharan zone , which is a major benefit to agriculture and the local population.
And this bonkers mad wants to reverse the beneficial warming effect of the modern optimum ?
He will have to fight way more against desertification than now if his crazy goal of reversing the (already decreasing) warming trend was to succeed.
Art says, “Global warming is good. Global cooling is bad”
I agree. A century of warming has extended the growing season, reduced cold stress, etc. But Savory was referring to the warming caused by overgrazing. The loss of vegetation and increased bare ground, warms the surroundings due to similar physics of an Urban Heat Effect.
The use of the term Climate Change is confusing to most people because it can be applied to different discussions of various warming effects. What should be appreciated is Savory is pointing out that landscape changes and desertification, not CO2, has caused regional warming over much of the world, and that warming is not a good thing. Dr Pielke has been arguing landscape effecs for decades. I have argued for a decade that the global average temperature is a chimera of effects. That is why I titled my book “Landscapes and Cycles”. Each contributing factor to the average must be dissected before we blame CO2 and then project a climate catastrophe that gets used to push a political agenda. Bad analyses promote bad remedies! Savory is pointing out a good regional remedy that counters the climate crisis fearmongering
(Rescued from spam bin) SUNMOD
Petit, you Totally misconstrue Savory’s efforts. He is not arguing that he can cure global warming or prevent naturally formed deserts. Indeed the Hadley circulation largely dictates where deserts will naturally be found, and a shifting ITCZ will cause the band of deserts to shift.
In contrast, Savory’s efforts are aimed at restoring NATURAL grasslands that were desertified by overgrazing! And that is something that can be reversed to everyone’s benefit. My work restoring a watershed proved that for me.
Art says, “Global warming is good. Global cooling is bad”
I agree. A century of warming has extended the growing season, reduced cold stress, etc. But Savory was referring to the warming caused by overgrazing. The loss of vegetation and increased bare ground, warms the surroundings due to similar physics of an Urban Heat Effect.
The use of the term Climate Change is confusing to most people because it can be applied to different discussions of various warming effects. What should be appreciated is Savory is pointing out that landscape changes and desertification, not CO2, has caused regional warming over much of the world, and that warming is not a good thing. Dr Pielke has been arguing landscape effecs for decades. I have argued for a decade that the global average temperature is a chimera of effects. That is why I titled my book “Landscapes and Cycles”. Each contributing factor to the average must be dissected before we blame CO2 and then project a climate catastrophe that gets used to push a political agenda. Bad analyses promote bad remedies! Savory is pointing out a good regional remedy that counters the climate crisis fearmongering
Jim, why does desertification lead to higher temperatures? The albedo of sand dunes is in the 30-60% range and sandy soil 15-40% compared with meadows and fields 12-30%, woods 5-20 and dark cultivated soil 7-10% (The Climate Near the Ground, Geiger, Table 3). Isn’t more sunshine reflected back into space?
Hi Pat,
You must consider several other variables. If albedo is the key driver of surface temperatures, then why are the record high maximum temperatures found in the deserts.
In the 2018 Mildrexler satellite study “Thermal Anomalies Detect Critical Global Land Surface Changes”, they examined land “skin surface” temperatures which closely correlate with surface air temperatures , they found the key factor was vegetation density. Examining global average skin surface temperature for vegetation types
forest land-cover types and highlatitude shrublands in the Northern Hemisphere averaged 20–
35C .
Grasslands, croplands, and some savannas maximum ranged from 30–50C
Barren deserts and shrublands in hot, dry environments ranged 50–65C.
In part those differences can be explained by how vegetation creates a moister environment via transpiration and its ability to hold soil moisture. Thus more solar radiation is consumed as latent heat due to evaporation , in contrast to solar radiation over dry high albedo land where it is converted primarily to sensible heat that rapidly raises temperatures. Water vapor also inhibits solar radiation from reaching the ground and also counteracts albedo differences.
,
Don’t interrupt the enemy when they are busy destroying themselves. I love to read stuff like this because it will lead to more voters turning away from the madness. Nothing like a threat to one’s stomach to focus one’s thoughts.
Important (although rather technical) remark: Cows produce methan up to 95 % through their mouth (by “burping”), not by farting. Do not repeat the same mistake as AOC, see, e.g., https://newfoodeconomy.org/alexandria-ocasio-cortez-green-new-deal-livestock-cow-greenhouse-gas-emissions-climate-change/ Nevertheless, banning (processed) meat is a nonsence.
Yupp………. VEGAN ??
Seen that Vegan Tiger …..
Eats two Vegan a day ..
Feel marvelous ….
It is known that meat pollutes. The documentary “The Uncomfortable Truth” explains exactly how does it happen. Besides meat, that is animals for industrial production, the problem also falls on cars. Hence, the problems for climate change are more than one.
Green Nutters are the fascists of the 2020s.
Intolerant, strident, wilful, dictatorial and utterly ignorant.
If you only listen to people whose pronouncements stand up to scrutiny, you will be filtering out a lot of verbal ‘Green Crap’…..
Cute term “Holistic grazing”. Excuse me while I go throw up.
Again, I am reminded humans are ALIENS on this planet, not part of it, that Darwin LIED and your imagination is the way to go. Really, it’s sad when the skeptics are part of the insanity….
PS Is anyone ragging on the starving people in third world counties about their “non-holistic” practices?????? Let ’em starve, right?
That’s a mighty weird comment Sheri. I suggest you actually visit the Savory Institute or the linked TED talk before you bloviate. Much of the poorest people of the world live on land that cannot sustain people via a plant based diet. They rely on grazing animals. Overgrazing . has been a problem in ALL cultures. Holistic grazing is a beneficial to that overgrazing and has shown success and much of the holilstic efforts have been directed towards healing the land where starving people are most vulnerable
Am I the only one to see the potential political impact here?
A few, well-placed, large billboards announcing, “Bill Blasio and his Democrat Supporters Want to Ban Fried Chicken Nuggets,” would turn NYC from blue to red virtually overnight, and they would look like hypocrites trying to deny it.
Whether they realize it or not, this is a third-rail. A voting bloc of fourteen percent of the population is almost thirty percent of the Democrat vote, and you can’t disrespect a culture’s traditional food without losing their support.
Prohibition, Part Two! Didn’t they learn the first time around? I can see it now: Today’s version of Al Capone, sitting in his luxurious penthouse apartment overlooking Central Park, big stogie in his mouth and an illicit sub sandwich in his beefy hand, while his minions scurry around the darkened NYC streets like 21st century bootleggers, delivering their ‘moonshine’ processed meats to hungry citizens.
Of the total land area of or planet of 149 million sq. Km. only 11 million is cropland while 28 million is considered pasture/herd lands. Another 12 million is bush, 39 million is forest and jungle, about 1.5 million is within city limits, but some cities are less than half urban development. Animal husbandry is the best way to economically utilize those 28 million Sq. Km. And the other half of the land area of the planet is rocks, desert, and ice.
People who say restriction of meat consumption will save the environment aren’t researching the topic. Most of them are sympathetic to animals being led to the abattoir.
Hi DmacK. – With the world population currently over 6,750,000,000 (6.77 billion) over the age of 14 & over 1,000,000,000 (1 billion) young people I’d like to parse dietary protein. Using WHO minimum protein requirement cipher (weight in pounds stated as grams divided in half = daily gr. protein need) & an admittedly generalized size human here goes.
If all the adults in the world weight was averaged at 150 pounds then each of them would require 75 grams of protein daily. That works out to 506,250,000 grams (506,250 Kg ) of protein daily for current adults.
If we average the world’s youth weight at 50 pounds then each of them would require 25 grams of protein daily. That works out to 25,000,000 grams (25,000 Kg). of protein daily for current children.
Every day 506,275 Kg of protein is required in the world. In a 365 day year 184,790,375 Kg of protein is required for current world population. The growth trend meanwhile is significantly driven in Africa.
Now having reared livestock I know that not all land is equally productive, nor is that land constantly so. True the same can be applied to agricultural land. None-the-less I believe on a large scale agricultural production of protein can be manipulated easier, distribution more compact & preservation simpler for the world at large.
Liberals are natural born dictators and will jump on board with anything restrictive.
Can I ask what the big deal about methane? It is always described as being 10 times or 25 times more greenhousing than CO2 but: there is more than 200 times more CO2 in the atmosphere than methane; it absorbs at a point in the spectrum (1306 cm-1) where the intensity of radiation is about a quarter of the peak at 600 where CO2 absorbs; water also absorbs more highly at this point in the spectrum, if methane were not absorbing, water would; and it resonates in a very narrow spike compared with the very broad line of CO2 – if you increase the amount of methane by a factor of 10 in MODTRAN, you hardly notice the difference. Is methane all that important to CAGW?
Jim ==> Thank you for this, very nicely done. There is news on the Meat Wars front, which I will be covering next week.
Thanks Kip, I look forward to your upcoming article on the Meat Wars. Your previous article were very informative
When it’s open season on Jews in NYC you just have to change the subject.
Pastrami? But isn’t pastrami one of the basic food groups in NY?
The global financial sector’s climate agenda is about creating a carbon market to invest in – it has nothing to do with science or anything else for that matter, just another place to invest idle cash. It’a resource grab and a way to control the rest of the populace and create another tax base, a Carbon credit program However, in the meantime, if government is going to continue to subsidize traditonal commodity markets the producers should be required to clean up their act; stop polluting and use more environmentally sustainable methods of production.