UK Climate Assembly: What is more Eco-Friendly, British Beef or Avocados?

Cecina (South American dried beef, sometimes served with Avocado). Thelmadatter [CC BY-SA]

Guest essay by Eric Worrall

Last September Extinction Rebellion demanded the UK create a citizens climate assembly, to oversee British climate policy. Climate Assembly UK is the result.

Burning questions at first UK climate change assembly

The sessions will discuss ways to meet the target of net zero carbon emissions by 2050

Camilla Hodgson in Birmingham

What is more eco-friendly, British beef or avocados? How do we ensure that the costs of tackling climate change do not affect the poor disproportionately? Is the government listening to the science or just paying it lip service?

These were some of the burning questions that members of the British public asked environmental experts on Saturday, at the country’s first citizen’s assembly for climate change in the city of Birmingham.

On the 16th floor of the Park Regis hotel, in a glass-panelled room overlooking six lanes of motorway traffic, 110 citizens gathered for the first of four sessions in which they hope to thrash out solutions for reaching net zero carbon emissions by 2050 — a goal that the government enshrined in law last year.

I see now how urgently we need to change our behaviour,” said Leia, 20, one of the assembly members, after a day of introductory speeches. “I’m hopeful that what we’re doing here will have a positive impact and will help persuade government they need to do something.”

As the day drew to a close, the broadcaster and natural historian Sir David Attenborough arrived to thank those present for taking part. “The people of this country ought to be extremely grateful to you,” he said. “The question we’re facing is of utmost importance.”

Read more:

I sure hope Extinction Rebellion feel they are receiving full value in return for all their efforts to persuade the British government to set up the new climate assembly.

0 0 votes
Article Rating
Newest Most Voted
Inline Feedbacks
View all comments
January 26, 2020 6:10 am
Reply to  John
January 26, 2020 8:08 am

Three of the group said they were not at all concerned, 16 not very concerned, 36 fairly concerned, 54 very concerned, and one did not know, organisers said.

What ?! They are allowing climate denierz a platform? The should be in jail for crimes against humanity !

January 26, 2020 6:22 am

“What is more eco-friendly, British beef or avocados?”

I’ve had the pleasure of indulging in british beef while in london and i would say stick with it by all means! It’s good.

Reply to  Chaamjamal
January 26, 2020 7:33 am

Especially when paired with beefeater gin.

Reply to  Curious George
January 26, 2020 10:09 am

With a drop of Vermouth – shaken, not stirred.

Jon Jewett
Reply to  brians356
January 27, 2020 12:40 pm

Definitely shaken! In an iced glass. The little chips of ice floating on top is a sign of a well made Martini.

Reply to  Chaamjamal
January 26, 2020 4:08 pm

I am quite fond of avocado on my hamburger. That counts as “green”, right?

Gary Pearse
Reply to  KcTaz
January 26, 2020 8:26 pm

I would include the vegetarian, sustainable cow meat. The grass they ate immediately took exactly the same amount of CO2 to grow back! This is hugely more sustainable than the UK Drax power station burning hardwood chips from South Carolina which take over 50 years to get their Co2 back!

Indeed the avocado takes a year to reclaim its CO2 with a new crop. Grass begins to reclaim in seconds!

Reply to  Chaamjamal
January 26, 2020 10:12 pm

“What is more eco-friendly, British beef or avocados?”

A lot I would think.
Certainly ensure that your beef has come from sane cows.
As for British avacodos…..hmmmnnn
Might be a hard ask.

Johann Wundersamer
Reply to  Chaamjamal
February 7, 2020 8:46 pm

Chaamjamal January 26, 2020 at 6:22 am

“What is more eco-friendly, British beef or avocados?”


It’s a British delicacy: boiled boar with mint sauce.

They always boil it with cod liver.

– Hunting wild boar in Corsica is a veritable institution,


– in September 2018, the ASF virus was detected for the first time in wild boar in Belgium.


– recently the abundance of boar in Estonian forests has been publicly discussed.

British speciality, boiled boar with mint sauce, a bit of all right, enjoy it!


Highly recommended in this context:


Duncan Smith
January 26, 2020 6:30 am

From the link, these ‘random’ 110 citizens were selected based on the below criteria, to be “representative of the UK population”. Hmmm, let me guess who was not included.
-Educational qualification
-Where in the UK they live
-Whether they live in an urban or rural area
-Attitudes to climate change

Duncan Smith
Reply to  Redge
January 26, 2020 8:05 am

Honestly surprised they included 3 non-believers, 4 if you include the last person. Thanks for the link.

Geo Rubik
Reply to  Redge
January 26, 2020 12:49 pm

“Redge January 26, 2020 at 7:26 am
Very unbalanced, but what did we expect.”

I thing “unbalanced” is the operative word. Perfectly describes most of those involved.

Reply to  Redge
January 26, 2020 5:03 pm

Just like sifting and separating until one achieves preferential number:

“They have been drawn from more than 1,800 people who responded to 30,000 invitations sent out to UK households selected at random and are representative of the UK population in age, gender, ethnicity, education and where they live.”

Thirty thousand invitations, only 1,800 responded; first and second levels of selection.
Third, fourth, fifth, sixth and seventh levels of selection were used to carefully winnow 1,800 down to 110 citizens.

Except they didn’t mention a critical selection level they used:

“Members are also representative of the country in terms of how concerned they are about climate change.”

A carefully chosen 110 citizens that still:

“Three of the group said they were not at all concerned, 16 not very concerned, 36 fairly concerned, 54 very concerned, and one did not know, organisers said.”

18.2% unconcerned or hardly concerned. Including the one who didn’t care enough to know.
32.7% “fairly” concerned. “Fairly”? Does that mean ‘evenly’ concerned?

Let’s investigate:
Merriam-Webster define “fairly” as:
“fairly adverb
fair·​ly | \ ˈfer-lē \

Definition of fairly
1: in a handsome manner
a table fairly set
2: obsolete
a: in a gentle manner : QUIETLY
b: in a courteous manner

3: so to speak : NEARLY, PRACTICALLY
fairly bursting with pride
4a: in a proper or legal manner
fairly priced stocks
b: without bias or distortion : IMPARTIALLY
a story told fairly and objectively”

Definitely not handsome.
Could be nearly or practically; as in ‘Nearly concerned’.
Definitely not proper or legal.
Not likely to be fairly or objectively.

Which makes a grand total of 51% unconcerned and slightly concerned.
And 49% “very” concerned.

And leaving us curious exactly how their survey was worded.

What a bunch of loons.

Reply to  Duncan Smith
January 26, 2020 8:09 am

When are the 99.998% going to STOP caving to these nut-jobs?

Reply to  Goldrider
January 26, 2020 8:41 am

You seem unaware of the damage done by two generations of full-time 24/7 indoctrination by the media and “education” system.

Reply to  Goldrider
January 26, 2020 10:03 am


I’ll go out on a limb here and make a suggestion.

It’s all smoke and mirrors. No government in their right mind would accept the collective wisdom of 110 laymen when they have innumerable ‘expert’ scientists to consult, and of course Attenborough, for all he’s worth.

This sounds a bit like a ploy from Humphrey in Yes Minister;

“Give XR exactly what they want Prime Minister. It will cost the country a few hundred thousand pounds, but think of the millions it will save in policing their disruption of London on a regular basis. We will promise to implement everything decided, providing it fits with government policy Prime Minister”

“And just what is our policy on climate change Humphrey?”

“Well, Prime Minister, it’s a movable feast. Just like the climate itself”.

” So we can tell XR we have done what they asked?”

” Precisely Prime Minister”.

January 26, 2020 6:32 am

So David Attenborough gets a prominent role. Will Matt Ridley be getting equal time?

Harry Passfield
Reply to  RobH
January 26, 2020 10:11 am

I’d rather it was Richard Lindzen.

Reply to  Harry Passfield
January 26, 2020 10:31 am

Harry Passfield

Richard is far to sciency and austere. Laymen just wouldn’t get it or warm to him.

Lord Ridley is a story teller. Whilst he’s factual, he’s amusing and engaging.

Ideally, it would be great to see a debate between him and Attenborough, but the latter would never agree. He knows full well Matt would wipe the floor with him.

Harry Passfield
Reply to  HotScot
January 26, 2020 11:20 am

I’ve a lot of time for Ridley but he always excuses his scepticism by agreeing that, yes, there is a problem with global warming. I always felt that he was buttering his toast on both sides.

Reply to  Harry Passfield
January 26, 2020 5:32 pm

Harry Passfield

Matt is both a businessman and a politician. He knows that to confront a problem with a ‘yes’ or ‘no’ binary option is futile. He plays the long game.

If you follow him on twitter his opinions are not those of a lukewarmer.

Reply to  RobH
January 26, 2020 10:23 am


Lord Matt Ridley, thank you…..which outranks Attenboroughs ‘Sir’.

Lord Ridley also outguns Attenborough in terms of appropriate scientific qualifications (but then my 25 year old daughter outguns them both for that matter).

But of course, Attenborough was controller of BBC 2 so has a great deal of influence within the BBC. I wonder if he brought them to bear on David Bellamy to have him virtually sacked from the corporation so Attenborough could pursue his own career as preeminent ‘naturalist’ on the BBC. And now we have his successor being groomed, Packham.

Lord Ridley has also written extensively on human progress, he’s also a businessman, who also owns a coal mine, but refuses to accept any of the many offers he’s had to erect highly profitable, Taxpayer subsidised, wind turbines on his land.

He’s also a ‘Lukewarmer’ on the subject of climate change which, to be fair, virtually every sceptic other than the most rabid are. He understands that atmospheric CO2 does have an effect on the planets temperature, but recognises that computer models are no substitute for observed data.

He also recognises that the world is greening, and that the last decade has been the most successful in all humanities history, with almost every human affliction, like poverty and disease, is being tackled dramatically by technology.

He’s a positive man with a positive outlook.

So, why on earth would he be included?

Harry Passfield
Reply to  HotScot
January 26, 2020 11:22 am

Agreed, in part. Well said.

Alan Haile
Reply to  HotScot
January 28, 2020 6:36 am

It is Viscount Ridley, which outranks a mere ‘Lord’,

January 26, 2020 6:36 am

Who paid for the hotel? Not the taxpayer I hope. Surely these people should be meeting in a yurt in the forest.

Julian Flood
Reply to  Redge
January 26, 2020 9:54 am

2 philanthropic foundations.

Which ones?


Bill Powers
Reply to  Susan
January 26, 2020 7:25 am

But Susan, you are asking them to disregard the 1st Tenet of Climate Advocacy, “Fossil Fuel for me but not for thee.”

They expect you to live in a yurt in the forest so they can fly about the world informing other nations Tenants were to go. Do as I say not as I do.

Keep in mind they employ climate arsonists to go around burning down forests in order to promote a sense of urgency. So you might want to stick to the edge of the forest so you can grab your yurt and haul your yurt out of there.

Reply to  Susan
January 26, 2020 4:16 pm

Susan, I was thinking the same thing but my mind went more to Stonehenge as being the appropriate location for the meeting.

But, noooo, they met “On the 16th floor of the Park Regis hotel, in a glass-panelled room overlooking six lanes of motorway traffic…”


January 26, 2020 6:45 am

“I see now how urgently we need to change our behaviour,”…

yep, admit you’re not the center of the universe…and the rest of the world is increasing their CO2 emissions faster than you could ever reduce it

…the countries that get paid to increase their emissions

Ron Long
January 26, 2020 7:02 am

What a stupid mix of loonies! Both Extinction Rebellion and UK Climate Assembly. I need to keep this short because it’s time to turn over a large cut of prime beef on the barbecue (carne asado en la parilla, aca en Argentina), and I will soon be mixing the salad with some avacado. To balance the meal I will drink some grape juice, but unfortunately I can’t afford the fresh stuff, so I am forced to drink the older fermented variety. Everyone else can change their ways and virtue signal all they want, not me.

Abolition Man
Reply to  Ron Long
January 26, 2020 8:06 am

Couldn’t agree more, Ron; loonies all! Whenever I’m BBQing steaks (preferably Ribeye or T-bone) I always throw one or two extra on the grill to make steak, avocado and bleu cheese salads for a few days. Nothing better than Grandma’s old family recipe for bleu cheese dressing, made extra chunky and mixed with steak, avocado and other fixings. Nary a carb in sight besides some sweet home grown tomatoes.
How are people going to follow low carb diets for weight and diabetes control if these moonbats ever get control? Maybe anyone who states that human population needs to be reduced should go to the front of the euthanasia line! That would be like killing two birds without a wind mill!

Ron Long
Reply to  Abolition Man
January 26, 2020 9:25 am

You’re obviously another genius, Abolition Man. I have finished my barbecue lunch and am under the influence of that fermented grape juice, but I can recognize another genius for sure. I will, however, walk an extra mile or two to burn off some calories later.

Smart Rock
Reply to  Ron Long
January 26, 2020 9:41 am

Ron, your comment has awakened long-forgotten memories of my childhood in Britain!

Growing up in the UK in the 1950s and 1960s, I only ever ate Argentinian beef. British beef was too expensive for us. Similarly with lamb, which we had a lot of because it was cheaper than beef, and it always came from New Zealand because it was cheaper than British lamb. We weren’t poor, but we weren’t rich, and my parents were paying off a mortgage.

These meats came across the ocean in refrigerated ships, but not (I believe) frozen. That meant they were well aged by the time they hit the slab in the local butcher shop.

That all stopped when UK joined the EEC. I am hoping that post-Brexit, those southern hemisphere meats will become freely available again. Good meat at good prices, and once again supporting the economies of two countries we so callously abandoned in favour of our new friends and our old enemies across the channel.

I live in Canada now and haven’t eaten meat in 20 years (nothing to do with saving the planet; I just visited an abattoir), but memories of roast beef dinners are alive and well. Thanks for the memory-jog.

Mike Lowe
Reply to  Smart Rock
January 26, 2020 10:45 am

I hope you increase your consumption of our New Zealand lamb. I wonder about the economics which allow it to be priced lower in the UK than here in NZ, where it has become something of a luxury! However, avocados are plentiful and cheap here. As is the fermented grape juice!

David S
Reply to  Ron Long
January 26, 2020 11:24 am

You’re making me hungry!

On the outer Barcoo
January 26, 2020 7:13 am

Are there a lot of commercial avocado growers in the UK?

Reply to  On the outer Barcoo
January 26, 2020 7:42 am

Not yet, but it could be coming. link

Rhys Jaggar
Reply to  On the outer Barcoo
January 26, 2020 8:28 am

We do not have the right climate: you can see the headline now: ‘Climate chaos as heavy summer rain with cool temperatures decimates avocado farmers’….

Johann Wundersamer
Reply to  On the outer Barcoo
February 7, 2020 8:54 pm

For commercial Avocado growers look up

Rule of thumb: for special nutrition industries first look up NZ.

Global Cooling
January 26, 2020 7:21 am

Beef is net zero carbon. Grass get its carbon from CO2 in the atmosphere. It grows and finally a cow eats it. Cow exhales CO2, more CO2 if we allow it to walk. Cow synthesizes fat and protein. Human eats the beef and exhales CO2. Humans can also synthesize fat and protein from lower value food.

Reply to  Global Cooling
January 26, 2020 9:36 am

It is useful to understand that the grass actually is fermented by ruminant bacteria to turn the grass cellulose into short chain carbohydrates that the cow’s own metabolism can then use. It is a symbiosis between the bovine gut macrobiotic cultures and the cow providing a reactor vessel (its stomachs) for the grass to be first processed to usable carbon-based energy source.

Johann Wundersamer
Reply to  Joel O'Bryan
February 7, 2020 9:05 pm
Harry Passfield
Reply to  Global Cooling
January 26, 2020 10:17 am

It’s ‘net-zero carbon di-oxide. Don’t fall for the propaganda. We have to fight back in the same way.

January 26, 2020 7:26 am

Not sure which is more ecofriendly, but too much consumption of the avocados will pack on the pounds.

Reply to  Sheri
January 26, 2020 11:52 am

“Avocado consumption is associated with better diet quality and nutrition intake, and lower metabolic syndrome in US adults: results from the National Health and Nutrition Examination Study … 2001-2008”; free full text available online.

From a different 2019 study results (quote): “… among subjects of normal weight … those … consumed avocado had … lower odds of being overweight ….” The intake was as high as 37.8 grams of avocado pulp daily.

Among those in the study population who were already overweight or obese the intake of avocado was not consistent in regards to weight changes. There are different kinds of avocado so can only generalize that every gram of avocado has an average 1.7 Kcal & the avocado’s carbohydrates are 80% fiber.

Reply to  gringojay
January 27, 2020 5:25 am

yet only this week on aussie media they ran an item that pregnant women should lay off avo’s as they caused harm to babies development
cant remember why cos I was too busy laughing to pay attention

January 26, 2020 7:32 am

There was a fad for the 100 mile diet. The problem is that it isn’t actually more environmentally friendly. Obviously, transport adds to the cost of food but, given the fuel economy of ships and trains, it’s a smaller portion of the cost than most people would guess. Some folks point out that New Zealand lamb is less energy intensive than its British equivalent, in Britain. link

When you’re assessing the environmental cost of something, you really have to consider everything. Just because something appears obvious, that doesn’t mean it’s right. Even avocados can be complicated. link

Reply to  commieBob
January 26, 2020 9:49 am

Really can’t see how. Hill farming in UK is very similar to NZ, i.e hardly any extra inputs just low intensity grazing of poor pastures, in fact from what I’ve seen there seem to be more fertiliser inputs in NZ than upland UK…THEN you have transportation. An article written in NZ about why the British should eat NZ lamb..biased? No!

Reply to  commieBob
January 26, 2020 9:56 am

I’d also add that old chestnut ‘it depends’
. Even lamb or beef for that matter varies hugely in its inputs and impacts (both positive and negative…sustainable low level grazing is a vital tool in conservation grazing to maintain high quality species rich grasslands, which in turn help hold water, and if you think it’s important co2 as well) within a country as small as Britain. Imo buying local has nothing to do with co2 and everything to do with knowing the real impacts, if it came from down the road you can see how it’s reared. It it comes from halfway round the world then you can read an article in the guardian, believe it if you want, I’d rather see for myself

January 26, 2020 7:37 am

UK’s Climate Soviet.

Reply to  Phaedo
January 26, 2020 8:21 am

A pretty stupid comment which indicates you did not read anything about the composition.

Patrick Hrushowy
Reply to  Greg
January 26, 2020 9:31 am

You read the composition of the assembly to be balanced? Really????

Harry Passfield
Reply to  Greg
January 26, 2020 10:19 am

Greg: Your spellcheck is amiss: I figured you meant ‘compost’. The Climate Assembly is surely that: a load of compost.

January 26, 2020 7:48 am

Avocados? Probably the most planet destroying food known . Avocados typically come from the tropical southern hemisphere

‘On average, about 283 litres of applied water are required to produce a kilogram of avocados. This is fresh ground or surface water that is applied via irrigation or other methods in order to produce a crop of the fruit, and does not include rainfall or natural moisture in the soil. This means that approximately 70 litres of applied fresh ground or surface water are required to grow one avocado.”

Of course, the amount of applied water needed to grow one avocado is dependent on where in the world it is grown.

In the part of Chile from which the UK typically imports avocados (Region 5, which includes Petorca Province) and where over 60% of Chile’s avocados are grown, an average of 1,280 litres of applied fresh water are needed to produce one kilogram of avocados, which means that about 320 litres of applied water are needed to grow one avocado.

Many avocado plantations are planted in recently cleared forest, losing bio diversity. The avocado is ttransported to the UK in a 3 week long journey by ship-a highly polluting form of transport

During its long journey it needs to be kept at just the right temperature to prevent ripening, often wrapped in protective plastic packaging

According to new research commissioned by food tech company It’s Fresh!, an average pack of just two avocados has an emissions footprint of 846.37g CO₂. For context, a kilogram of bananas is only 480g of CO₂, and a single banana is only 80g CO₂. Avocados also have a carbon footprint three times the size of a large cappuccino (235g CO₂) and more than 40 times larger than a black tea or coffee, which is only 21g CO₂.

Read more:
Twitter: | Facebook:

For comparison, a global average of 110 litres of applied fresh water are needed to produce a kilogram of oranges, so each orange requires about 22 litres of applied water.

To produce a kilogram of tomatoes requires 63 kilograms of applied fresh water, meaning that 5 litres of applied water are needed to grow each tomato.

Human beings, on the other hand, require on average between 50 and 100 litres of water to meet their most basic daily needs, according to the World Health Organisation.’

The contents of many vegan Smoothies or meal ingredients do not bear close scrutiny as regards their environmental footprint, which are as large as that of Prince Charles or David Attenborough and his attendant film crew.

So don’t listen to a vegan when they tell you they are ‘saving the planet’. They aren’t. If they are vegan for moral animal welfare type reasons, that is a different argument


David Chappell
Reply to  tonyb
January 26, 2020 12:06 pm

What a nonsensical argument. It would only be valid if the water applied was destroyed in the process which, of course, it isn’t. As a resource it is truly renewable as part of the water cycle.

Reply to  tonyb
January 26, 2020 12:28 pm

No one seems to have pointed out that avocados are slimy and bland – like courgettes .
Does taste have no role in the debate?

Zig Zag Wanderer
Reply to  mikewaite
January 26, 2020 12:54 pm

It’s a bit like the mayonaise opinion. People’s opinions are very polarised on the flavour and texture of some foods.

Personally I like avocadoes very much, especially in a salad, but often just as they are with a vinaigrette. When you mash it on vegimite toast and slap a poached egg on top, I’m in heaven!

Reply to  mikewaite
January 26, 2020 1:12 pm

creamy, subtle and refreshing. not slimy and bland. you are confusing avocado with okra.

Zig Zag Wanderer
Reply to  tonyb
January 26, 2020 12:50 pm

Fortunately for me, my avocadoes are carbon neutral being from my garden, just like my oranges. We’re currently snacking on our nice crop of mangoes.

All carbon neutral and naturally irrigated, although that does reduce the crop somewhat. All I had to do was move to the tropics. I still can’t figure out why 1C of warming will hurt anyone when 10C or more of warming seemed to be very beneficial to me…

Reply to  Zig Zag Wanderer
January 27, 2020 3:47 pm

Turpentine (yuck) or Bowen Mangoes(yum)?

Reply to  tonyb
January 26, 2020 12:54 pm

Most of the ones I eat come from Costco.

Reply to  tonyb
January 26, 2020 5:14 pm

FAO recommends for each hectare of producing avocados 7,521 – 8,311 cubic meters of water is ideal annually; more water does not linearly mean more produce . So depending on what type of ecological niche & exact variety is grown then commercial orchards do, or do not have to irrigate to some degree.

My avocados are grafted & when transplanted I did water them; otherwise they only get water from whatever (tropical) rain falls. This type of avocado is quite large, smooth skinned & still not watery; quite different than the popular supermarket small pebble grain skin, creamy in fat “Hass” avocado.

There are quite elaborate quotas in many countries for how many avocados a producing nation can export to them in a year. The favorite trade deals are political in some cases, so a lot of the countries that have the rainfall to naturally crop avocados with minimal irrigation input are not necessarily the origin of supermarket avocados in the most developed countries.

Reply to  gringojay
January 27, 2020 2:46 pm

Water requirements (average) for production of the following are:

1 kg maize is 540-630 Liters water

1 kg rice is 1,550 L.

1 kg wheat is 715-759 L.

1 kg soy bean is 1,650-2,200 L.

1 kg chicken is 6,000 L.

1 kg beef is 15,000 L.

1 egg is 135 L.

1 glass of wine is 120 L.

1 cup of coffee is 140 L.

1 glass of milk is 200 L.

On a human 3,000 calorie diet the equivalent input energy used (average) is:

For meat eaters approximately 12 kilo-watt hours input energy per day. A half pound (about 227 grams) of meat consumed contributes 8 kilo-watt hours of input energy per day.

For vegetarians approximately 4 kilo-watt hours input energy per day.

Ovo-vegetarians consuming 2 eggs adds 1 kilo-watt energy per day.

Lacto-vegetarians consuming 50 grams (1&3/4 ounces) of cheese adds 1.5 kilo-watt energy per day.

Ben Vorlich
January 26, 2020 7:58 am

Talking of XR

Climate rebel tycoon nets tainted millions: How Extinction Rebellion’s British hedge fund backer profits from ‘dirty’ firms

Alasdair Fairbairn
January 26, 2020 8:08 am

From what I have read, Citizen Assemblies in France were well known for their liberal? use of the Guillotine.
Kowtowing to the activists is NOT a sensible way to run a country. We already have our citizens Assembly in the Houses of Parliament.

Rhys Jaggar
January 26, 2020 8:34 am

The answer to this depends on where the avacados are grown, surely? They will have to be flown in (unless storage facilities make shipping them in whilst remaining tasty possible) from the Eastern Mediterranean or the like, whereas a cow could be raised in a field under a mile from where you live in the UK.

I am tired of ecofascists saying that the only thing cattle do is belch methane.

1. They enhance soil fertility through their dung, improving pasture each and every year as long as the farmers know what they are doing.
2. They provide milk, butter, cheese etc, all of which are highly healthy products.
3. They provide meat.

When are the econutters going to call oak trees ‘murdering totalitarian swine’? After all, oak trees pretty much stop anything growing in a huge area around their trunk courtesy of saying ‘get off my patch’ to enormous numbers of other plants. Even hardy grasses struggle to get a look in once the oak tree becomes mature. All to feed a few squirrels, provide the odd nest and take 300 years to produce wood for one house.

I am not against oak trees myself, but I do think we need to stop saying ‘plants perfect, animals evil’ just once in a while…….

And we should also stop deifying Attenborough, a self-serving trumped up charlatan if there ever were one.

January 26, 2020 9:19 am

The most eco-friendly behavior is to stop funding those nuts.

January 26, 2020 9:30 am

“Leia, 20, one of the assembly members, ”

What the Hell does a 20-year old bring to a rational policy discussion… other than a Greta-like ignorance laden with irrational emotions?

Maybe (like when US Secretary of Treasury commented about ignorant, naive Greta), when Ms Leia gets an advanced degree and practical world experience in some relevant subject, then she can participate in serious policy discussions. Maybe then she can recognize and differentiate between what is merely her indoctrination and manipulation by people with an agenda and what is true about human behaviors, microeconomics, energy realities, and engineering and science capabilities and our various societal future scenarios.

Harry Passfield
Reply to  Joel O'Bryan
January 26, 2020 10:25 am

It’s either a costly three-year degree in a university of choice or 40 years in the university of life. My education was free – but costly. I learned a lot…I’m still learning, And it’s still free.

Mike Lowe
Reply to  Joel O'Bryan
January 26, 2020 10:57 am

I would like to congratulate Leia’s ex-employer, who was obviously able to ascertain that her degree of ignorance would prevent her from successfully completing her apprenticeship! Perhaps he / she refused to allow Leia to learn how to apply adhesive during working hours.

January 26, 2020 9:37 am

Best way to “protect” environement is to buy local products as far as possible.

Also it isn’t necessary to transport products over hundrets of km to process them and drive them later back to origin.

Reply to  Krishna Gans
January 26, 2020 10:20 am

I want the freshest food at the lowest prices. And unless it comes from a polluted area I couldn’t care less where it came from.

Ben Vorlich
Reply to  Krishna Gans
January 26, 2020 11:43 am

Most people don’t have an unlimited budget. As a result everything is a compromise including the choice of what to eat. If that means not buying expensive ethical bio foodstuffs then that’s how it is.

But in the West we don’t have to eat Tripe, Sweetbreads, pigs trotters if it upsets our sensibilities. My parents and grandparents weren’t that fortunate.

John F. Hultquist
Reply to  Krishna Gans
January 26, 2020 12:52 pm

Is it okay with you if I buy non-local products?
Commercially here grass is grown for hay for cattle.
There would be only beef to eat if not for transported food.
Mostly, we solve this issue by only eating things grown in the Western Hemisphere.

Patrick Hrushowy
January 26, 2020 9:39 am

The average person gets overwhelmed by all these negative scare stories and starts shutting it all out of their awareness and eats whatever they can, even if they are concerned about the environment.

Harry Passfield
January 26, 2020 10:04 am

Boris Johnson saw off the EU but can’t manage to see off XR and the ‘climate assembly’, both of which are the most undemocratic (while claiming to be democratic) constructs since the beginning of the 20th C.
Boris needs to get some lead in his pencil – some trump in his trumpet!

January 26, 2020 10:58 am

“Citizen assembly.” The unlamented USSR had those. They called them Soviets and were about as democratic asca stacked decking marked cards.

michael hart
January 26, 2020 1:12 pm

I’ll have the Avocados as the starter and the steak to follow. Blue, please.

January 26, 2020 5:17 pm

“On the 16th floor of the Park Regis hotel, in a glass-panelled room overlooking six lanes of motorway traffic, 110 citizens gathered for the first of four sessions”

I receive invitations to various events every month.
They promise quality dinners, desserts, fun and games, idyllic beaches and sometimes clean swimming pools.
All they want me to do is listen to sales pitches. Even if they do not term them sales pitches.

Leaving us curious, exactly what did the climate delusion organizers promise to these folks to get 110 to attend?
Definitely dinner and likely breakfast. Though, I doubt the meal(s) were vegetarian or vegan.
Certainly they promised travel reimbursement.

Four sessions at the Park Regis or equivalent.

Can anyone imagine guests spitting in their host’s beer? Four small vacations at the Park Regis or similar, free meals?
All they have to do is humor the organizers. Paid attendees.

Martin Howard Keith Brumby
January 26, 2020 5:58 pm

Call me a cynical curmudgeon, but what is the betting that almost all the “sceptical” members that have been carefully selected for this anti-democratic focus group will undergo amazing ‘Damascene conversions’ during their four sessions.

We’ve seen this before, where die-hard green fraudsters have pretended to be sceptical, only to realise the errors of their ways.

Didn’t Mueller of Berkley Earth try this?

Another factor not spelled out here is that 16 year olds are included.

You may have a view on how reliable the views of a sixteen year old are on any subject…
But surely, as Climate is, in essence, 30 years worth of weather, it would perhaps be helpful to have a minimum age of, say, 45. That way, participants might at least have some memories of past cold winters, hot summers and so on.

But this approach would only appeal if the organisers had the slightest interest in considered opinions, which will certainly NOT be the case.

Coeur de Lion
January 26, 2020 11:52 pm

The retiring chairman of BP said that eight Asian countries are commissioning a new coal fired power station every week. Good on them. Let the 110 try living without electricity.

January 27, 2020 7:11 am

Oceania has always been at war with beef.

January 27, 2020 10:13 am

Who will be assigned the task of telling the Chinese they may not eat pork? I want to watch.

January 27, 2020 11:19 am

There’s more (and worse) to this than quibbling about avocados. In four weekends, just twenty minutes were set aside for an explanation of the science. Professor Haigh went two minutes over her allotted time and so had to skip all discussion of feedback, clouds, humidity, ocean heat storage and natural variation. She claimed that we know temperatures over the past “thousands of years” thanks to tree-rings, coral and stalagmites, and in the Q&A stated that China has promised to build no more coal-fired power plants. More on this at

January 27, 2020 3:40 pm

From the BBC link by John, I see that Sir David Attenborough says that the British Parliament needs convincing by the Citizen’s Assembly to take climate change “seriously”.
This is a country that passed the Climate Change Act 2008 which the late Christopher Booker described as the most useless, expensive piece of legislation ever, give or take the funding of a few wars.
A Parliament that, spurred on by a cranky school dropout, declared a climate emergency, and has promised net zero emissions by some time after all the Members are dead.
Has anyone asked Sir David what he could do to act more “decisively” on global warming?

January 28, 2020 12:48 am

Instead of organising an assembly of 110 people to discuss the Climate I would much prefer to see, in the UK, (and elsewhere especially the USA) a Climate Change Emergency Parliamentary Select Committee where, say, four ‘experts’ from ‘both sides’ of the debate, within the field of Climatology, could answer questions, under oath, to the veracity of the climate emergency. The first question could be ‘what, exactly, is the emergency and why do we only have ten/twelve years to resolve it’.

One of the ‘experts’ from the alarmist side in the UK should be Prof Phil Jones of UEA who should be asked about the emails (some of the alleged 30,000 pieces of data evidence that ‘went missing’) he received and sent regarding altering the ‘base figures’ to ensure the results matched their outcomes!

I don’t think anyone can deny Climate Change. We are in an interglacial period and it should not surprise anyone that there is a slight upward trend in temperatures. The Northern hemisphere had a Little Ice Age which ended in the mid 19th century (circa 1550 – 1850).

Another MAJOR factor is today, the Earth’s axis is tilted 23.5 degrees from the plane of its orbit around the sun. But this tilt changes. During a cycle that averages about 40,000 years, the tilt of the axis varies between 22.1 and 24.5 degrees. Because this tilt changes, the seasons as we know them can become exaggerated. More tilt means more severe seasons—warmer summers and colder winters; less tilt means less severe seasons—cooler summers and milder winters. When will the axis change again? How will this further affect CC?

Why do I hear some scientists say that, regarding Climate science is ‘the Science is Settled’? Science is NEVER settled.

Many questions and very few honest and open answers.

Johann Wundersamer
February 7, 2020 8:25 pm

Financial Times



Climate change

Antarctica temperature touches record high of 18.3C
Scientists warn of devastating effects of global warming on ice sheets in polar regions



Industrial companies fall behind on global warming plans

Less than a fifth have emissions-cutting plans that align with targets set out in Paris

JANUARY 28 2020


Children at risk from indoor air pollution, report warns

Doctors call for ‘urgent action’ to tackle lack of regulation for schools and homes

Camilla Hodgson is a


at the Financial Times;

Which means: the Financial Times gives Camilla Hidgson

some space to warm her fingers onto the keyboard and train her phantasie, imagination force.

These are teething problems that everyone has to go through ….

Johann Wundersamer
February 7, 2020 9:19 pm

“Burning questions at first UK climate change assembly

The sessions will discuss ways to meet the target of net zero carbon emissions by 2050

Camilla Hodgson in Birmingham

What is more eco-friendly, British beef or avocados?”


Another null problem

can dispose at the Rundablage:

Johann Wundersamer
February 7, 2020 9:29 pm

My fault –

“Burning questions at first UK climate change assembly

The sessions will discuss ways to meet the target of net zero carbon emissions by 2050

Camilla Hodgson in Birmingham

What is more eco-friendly, British beef or avocados?”


Another null problem –> net zero problem

can dispose at the Rundablage:

%d bloggers like this: