The Guardian: Tax Meat to Hit Paris Agreement Climate Targets

Guest essay by Eric Worrall

According to The Guardian, food intake in rich countries must be cut, especially meat intake, or it will be impossible to stay below 1.5C global warming.

Global food production emissions ‘would put Paris agreement out of reach’

Study calls for more focus on farming and food waste, behind a third of greenhouse gas production

Fiona Harvey Environment correspondent
Fri 6 Nov 2020 06.00 AEDT

While emissions from some other carbon-intensive sectors, such as energy generation, have been slowing as clean technology is more widely adopted, farming has received less attention from policymakers. But if emissions from food production continue on current trends, they will rise to a cumulative 1,356 gigatons by the end of the century, according to a study in the journal Science.

If emissions from food production are to be cut to safe levels, diets in rich countries are also likely to have to change. “These countries are primarily those that are middle or high income where dietary intake and consumption of meat, dairy and eggs is on average well above [health] recommendations,” said Clark, citing the UK, the US, Australia, Europe, Brazil and Argentina, and countries such as China where meat consumption is high and increasing.

Any such changes would benefit people’s health and help to solve the obesity crises stalking many rich societies. “Diets need to shift to contain less food in general, such that caloric intake is in line with healthier quantities, and less meat, dairy and eggs, such that consumption of these foods is in line with dietary recommendations,” said Clark.

The paper does not specify the policy remedies likely to be required, but there are increasing calls from campaigners and health professionals for reform. Earlier this week, health professionals in the UK called for a tax on meat to help tackle the climate crisis and improve health.

Clark told the Guardian: “Taxes might be part of the solution, but they will not be the only solution. If food taxes to reduce emissions are implemented, we need to make sure they are not regressive and do not have a large negative impact on the people least able to afford the tax.”

Read more:

Of all the interventions climate advocates promote, their plans to interfere with food production are the most terrifying.

If history teaches us anything, that lesson is food abundance is fragile; Venezuela, the Soviet Union, North Korea, Pol Pot’s Cambodia, Mao’s China; history has given us a long list of examples, of what happens when governments get in the way of food production.

0 0 votes
Article Rating
Newest Most Voted
Inline Feedbacks
View all comments
November 5, 2020 10:17 pm

First, they want to make energy unnecessarily expensive and now they want to us to starve, all in the name of fake science that’s so wrong it’s an embarrasment to all legitimate science. How can anyone be so gullible?

Reply to  co2isnotevil
November 5, 2020 11:55 pm

You know how thick the average person is? Well, half of them are thicker….

Charles Higley
Reply to  Chaswarnertoo
November 6, 2020 6:34 am

They know that, as an old phrase fro India says, “Red meat causes war.” They want basically vegetarians with so little energy from long term malnutrition that they do not have the will to rebel. Think of Ghandi. His pacifist strategy (as a vegetarian) only worked bacause he was not dealing with racists and sociopaths. Now we are.

If you think about the original caveman diet, they lived on meat and animal organs most of the year and , just like bears, only had carbohydrates and sugars in late Summer, early Fall when they could load up on calories for the long winter months.

We were never designed to have carbohydrates all year round and we are paying the price with heart disease, diabetes, and obesity. All of this goes away if you go to a low carbohydrate diet.

Jeff Alberts
Reply to  Charles Higley
November 6, 2020 9:05 am

They want basically vegetarians with so little energy from long term malnutrition that they do not have the will to rebel.

I don’t know about that. I’d be willing to bet that many of the rioters in the various Democrat-controlled cities are woke plant eaters. At least many of the females are, and that means their boyfriends are.

Hey… Maybe the boyfriends are all ticked off about that, but won’t admit it. So they take out their frustrations on society instead. I’ll need several million dollars in funding to study this. I’m sure it’s 97% worse than anyone thought.

Jeff Alberts
Reply to  Jeff Alberts
November 6, 2020 9:41 am

Crap, the first sentence was supposed to be quoted. I guess the q tag doesn’t work here.

Reply to  Jeff Alberts
November 6, 2020 11:44 am

the first sentence was supposed to be quoted.

I always just use italics (i) 🙂

Rich Davis
Reply to  Jeff Alberts
November 6, 2020 1:44 pm

I guess the q tag doesn’t work here.

Try blockquote instead.

Jeff Alberts
Reply to  Jeff Alberts
November 6, 2020 7:58 pm

I have use blockquote many times, but wanted something quicker and less typo-prone. It was a failed experiment, I learned from it. 😉

Reply to  co2isnotevil
November 6, 2020 5:37 am

They’re just trying to meet a goal. It’s just not the one you’re thinking about. This one had something to do with getting the population down to about a billion people.

Reply to  Spetzer86
November 6, 2020 12:15 pm

do you think they will stop at 1B?

Reply to  Spetzer86
November 6, 2020 4:18 pm

The hardcore want it down to about 250 million worldwide.

Bill Powers
Reply to  co2isnotevil
November 6, 2020 9:50 am

This has never been about global warming, co2isnotevil. That is a hobgoblin to achieve their real hidden objectives. This has been a long climb, on the part of the faceless cultural elite to wield Central Authoritarian Government, around the globe, to drastically reduce and then control global population and preserving fossil fuel for the faceless cultural elite who pay for that Central Authoritarian Government. They want only enough lower class to do their cleaning cutting , and manufacturers laboring. The rest of the 7 Billion need to go. No fossil fuel for you!

Reply to  Bill Powers
November 6, 2020 12:46 pm

“They want only enough lower class to do their cleaning cutting , and manufacturers laboring. ”
You have forgotten the concubines.


Reply to  co2isnotevil
November 7, 2020 9:16 am

The hate the working, or producing, class. First they came for the coal miner. They sure aren’t smart though to try to ruin the very people who, if they wanted to, could purposefully destroy all of their own crops at once in protest.

Michael S. Kelly
November 5, 2020 10:29 pm

Obesity didn’t become a problem in the United States until the government issued its food “recommendations”, leaning toward a vast increase in carbohydrates, and far less protein. Carbs are cheaper to produce, but require a larger caloric intake to provide necessary nutrients. They produce obesity and its attendant problems, like diabetes. Further cuts to our meat (and other protein) intake would be a handy way of reducing life expectancy, so that all of the truly unsustainable government promises to take care of people in their final years (in the U.S., Social Security, Medicare and Medicaid) don’t actually have to be honored – reducing the crushing debt burden the government has racked up by some small amount. And it would mean more Kobe beef for our betters, don’t you know…

Nick Graves
Reply to  Michael S. Kelly
November 6, 2020 12:26 am

That’s it, in a nutshell.

Hard to believe they still get away with pedalling their lies.

The carbohydrate crisis is worse than we thought.

Jeff Alberts
Reply to  Nick Graves
November 6, 2020 9:08 am

“Hard to believe they still get away with pedalling their lies.”

It’s hard to peddle when you’re pedalling.

Nick Graves
Reply to  Jeff Alberts
November 6, 2020 11:36 am

Sorry, caffeine had not reached brain when I typed that.

Jeff Alberts
Reply to  Nick Graves
November 6, 2020 7:58 pm


Reply to  Michael S. Kelly
November 6, 2020 5:33 am

Michael Kelly

Baloney Alert:

You Claim:
“Obesity didn’t become a problem in the United States until the government issued its food “recommendations”, leaning toward a vast increase in carbohydrates, and far less protein. Carbs are cheaper to produce, but require a larger caloric intake to provide necessary nutrients.”

I’d bet 99 percent of Americans have no idea what is on the food “recommendations” list. Fat patient talking to his slim doctor: “Eating and drinking too many calories and my lack of exercise could not possibly be the reason I’m fat. It’s those no good goobermint food recommendations that caused me to weigh 279lbs.!

You Claim:
” all of the truly unsustainable government promises to take care of people in their final years (in the U.S., Social Security, Medicare and Medicaid) don’t actually have to be honored – reducing the crushing debt burden the government has racked up by some small amount.:”

All those programs are pay as you go welfare programs. They are funded with current tax revenues and borrowing, and they ARE sustainable, especially with interest rates on Treasury bonds so low — well under the rate of inflation. Everything is sustainable until investors stop buying U.S. Treasury bonds, notes and bills. The low interest rates encourage more borrowing, and more government spending, and make it EASIER to sustain welfare problems.

Charles Higley
Reply to  Richard Greene
November 6, 2020 6:37 am

The social security plans were not meant to be pay as you go. It is only that way because Congress could not keep their sticky fingers of the Soc. Sec. Trust Fund, which, at this point should be Yuge.

Reply to  Charles Higley
November 6, 2020 3:50 pm

Not true Higley.
The “trust fund” is fictional compared with a real trust fund. It contains only Igoobermint OUs (non marketable US Treasury bonds) because any surplus of SS tax revenue is immediately used by the other “half” of the government.

A “trust fund” full of IOUs is not a real trust fund. Social Security was ALWAYS meant to be pay as you go even though the illusion of a trust fund sounded good to the general public, as if you were getting “your own money back plus interest”.

It would have been foolish for Social Security to have a surplus … while the rest of the government had a deficit, and had to borrow money to fund that deficit. I recall SS spending finally exceeded income from SS payroll taxes in 2010, and the deficit will continue (not just in recession years). The trust fund running out of money in 2034 just means the existing IOUs and estimated SS tax income will cover the estimated SS spending through 2034 … and does not mean any SS benefits will ever be cut.

Nothing wrong with the program … now that we are old … they pay us thousands of $ every month.

Michael S. Kelly
Reply to  Richard Greene
November 6, 2020 10:33 pm

“Pay as you go” is defined as a system where you pay for a good or service before you receive or use it, and you cannot receive more value than you have paid in. In my working life, I (and my employers) paid about $250,000 into the Social Security “Trust Fund.” At age 66, I am now on Social Security, and receive $35,760 a year. If I live only 7 years more, I will have fulfilled the “pay as you go” definition. After that, I’m on welfare. Given that the median lifespan of my family is 90 years, I will probably go 2.5 times over the “pay as you go” line.

Social Security is a Ponzi scheme, pure an simple, used to buy votes from younger people for the promise of “riches” in the future by taking money from them, and paying off the same promise made to older people. There’s a reason a Ponzi scheme is a crime – but having the government run a Ponzi scheme doesn’t make it less of a crime, it just allows idiots like you to echo Ponzi’s spiel to his victims about how it was “pay as you go” without being imprisoned.

Rich Davis
Reply to  Richard Greene
November 6, 2020 1:53 pm


I thought the approved term used by Biden fans was malarkey?

Or was it trunalimunumaprzure?

Reply to  Rich Davis
November 6, 2020 4:04 pm

When I lived in Brooklyn, NYC with relatives, while going to school in Manhattan, they used many unique Brooklyn terms I didn’t understand, and one was “Banana Earl”. I had no idea what they were talking about some times, until one day they told my cousin to take the family car in for an “earl change”. Banana Oil meant malarkey to them.

While getting my BS degree, I learned a new, and even more sophisticated term for baloney, malarkey or banana earl — “A steaming pile of farm animal digestive waste products”. Before getting my BS degree, I used to say: “That’s B_ll Sh_t”, but now that I have my degree in The Sordid History Of Bulgarian War Heroes, I use the more sophisticated phrase. And they foolishly say college is a bad investment.

Tom in Florida
Reply to  Michael S. Kelly
November 7, 2020 5:51 am

To each his own. I once lost 38 lbs in 90 days to win a weight loss contest. I did it on a pasta diet. Protein drink in the morning, vegetable soup in for lunch, an apple snack in the afternoon and for dinner as much pasta as I chose to eat along with bread and butter and milk. I should mention that I worked my way up to jogging 5 miles a day during that period, and I always jogged first thing in the morning. As long as I jogged at least 3 miles 5 times a week I could eat anything I wanted and did not gain the weight back.

Andrzej K.
Reply to  Michael S. Kelly
November 7, 2020 8:00 am

Carbs themselves don’t encourage obesity. Eg. look at Potato Hack.

It’s the combination of carbs + fat within around 500 kcal/100g range that is the most fattening. Something like chocolate, cookies etc. as a product. Or combinginc carbs + fat in a meal, even if from different sources, like sugar from sodas, plus fat from stuff fried in oils, or fatty meat.

Joel O'Bryan
November 5, 2020 10:41 pm

Grilled two very high qual NY strip steaks tonight on the BarB.
F the Climate Scam and all its fraudsters.

Reply to  Joel O'Bryan
November 5, 2020 10:58 pm

Having a nice eye fillet tonight, with a bacon/onion pepper topping, green vege, maybe some roasted chips.

Joel O’Bryan
Reply to  fred250
November 5, 2020 11:10 pm

The climate alternative is a Mannian cockroach and sawdust soup with a side of Termites for an appetizer.

Jeff Alberts
Reply to  Joel O’Bryan
November 6, 2020 9:16 am

“side of Termites for an appetizer.”

Mmm, deep fried termites!

Reply to  Jeff Alberts
November 6, 2020 4:26 pm

Chocolate cover termites. Any excuse to have more chocolate.

Tom in Florida
Reply to  fred250
November 6, 2020 6:19 am

I think I will go with a couple of fresh, hand made, ground chuck burgers..Grilled medium rare with some mayo and ketchup, a slice of 1000 ppm greenhouse tomato all on a toasted onion bun. A side of baked sweet potato and a couple of bottles of Harp makes it complete. Oh hell, why wait, I’ll do that for lunch.

November 5, 2020 10:55 pm

Cattle CANNOT put out more “carbon” than they take in, ever..


Reply to  fred250
November 5, 2020 11:57 pm

methane Fred, methane…. plus how you feed them, land use…

Reply to  griff
November 6, 2020 12:49 am

You obviously do not understand ANYTHING about biology or chemistry.

You are a scientific WASTELAND, devoid of even the slightest semblance of basic education or intelligence.

I repeat, because you are SO SLOW of basic comprehension…

Cattle CANNOT put out more “carbon” than they take in, ever..


Rich Davis
Reply to  fred250
November 6, 2020 2:19 pm

Cows are carbon sinks until they reach full size, then they’re roughly neutral until they die and become carbon sources just like us humans. Overall neutral.

But expand the boundaries of the mass balance beyond the actual cow and the griffter is probably correct that the stuff we do to raise them tends to make the overall process a net source of carbon dioxide. After all we don’t feed them exclusively by grazing or with hay and silage grown using only manure spread by human/animal labor, and harvested using only human/animal labor, like maybe the Amish still do. Lots of fossil fuels in the process.

But just because the stopped clock is right twice a day, it doesn’t mean that griff has a good point.

We still need to point out that CO2 is good for the environment. History will eventually record that thinking that we need to destroy economies trying to reduce atmospheric CO2 is the biggest mass delusion of all time. Or the worst criminal conspiracy?

Reply to  griff
November 6, 2020 12:55 am

methane breaks down quickly to CO2 , which has absolutely NO EFFECT on the weather or the climate.

Just like CO2, warming by atmospheric methane has NEVER been observed or measured anywhere on the planet.

Please continue your abject inability to produce on single by of evidence of warming by atmospheric CO2 or CH4…

Its hilarious watching you childish evasion and distractions.

1… Do you have any empirical scientific evidence for warming by atmospheric CO2 or CH4?

2… In what ways has the global climate changed in the last 50 years , that can be scientifically proven to be of human causation?

Charles Higley
Reply to  fred250
November 6, 2020 6:50 am

First, as the gases in the upper tropical troposphere, which are supposed to be capturing IR and sending it back to Earth’s surface and warming it, is at about -17 deg C and the surface is +15 deg C, the surface, being hotter will reflect/reject all this downwelling IR. This is the first way the junk science of CO2 fails (there are about 18 ways it cannot and does not do what they claim). Thermodynamics does not play favorites and the alarmists KNOW that their science cannot bear scrutiny.

Second, they refuse to admit that real science has shown that CO2 and methane have only about a 5-year half life in the atmosphere, which means both are quite dynamic. They would have the public believe that all the CO2 and methane emitted from all sources into the atmosphere is still there. NASA has the fall-life at 1000 +years despite dozens of published papers to the contrary.

Third, they claim methane is 20 times the greenhouse gas that CO2 is. However, they neglect to mention that methane is at about 1/400th of CO2’s concentration in the atmosphere. It’s all a joke based on cobbled, altered and misrepresented data. Which make climate science, propaganda and no more.

Also, what should not be ignored, but is, is the work of Mizkolski (formerly at NASA) who showed years ago that, when CO2 goes up, the absolute humidity decreases, such that more CO2 means less water vapor and lower radiative gas effects. In other words, they are fairly self-compensating, to create a rather stable cooling effect.

Tom Abbott
Reply to  Charles Higley
November 6, 2020 7:23 am

“Second, they refuse to admit that real science has shown that CO2 and methane have only about a 5-year half life in the atmosphere, which means both are quite dynamic.”

Yeah, that NOVA tv science program about Human-caused Climate Change I watched the other day claimed CO2 would stay in the atmosphere for a thousand years. They made a lot of other unsubstantiated claims during that program, too. Typical Alarmist assertions with substantiation. It’s enough to drive a real scientist (professional or amateur) nuts.

Rod Evans
Reply to  griff
November 6, 2020 1:28 am

Griff, I take it from your comment you were thrilled with the massive almost complete wipe out of the American bison back in the late 1800s early 1900s. Without that active human intervention those millions of methane producing massive land consuming beasts, would have destroyed the earth wouldn’t they…..
How fortunate we all were, that our American ancestors took early action to save the planet.

Lachaln Flawse
Reply to  griff
November 6, 2020 2:12 am

fred is correct. Sorry griff you need to understand chemistry not just read the guardian. The life of methane in the atmosphere was, by the IPCC, 12 years. The climate models re methane were thus based on this. Soon after the life of Methane was changed to 7 years!!! Whoops!!! Soon after that it became 5 years. The latest I saw from that lot was 3 years….and counting. indeed there is some evidence that mehtane doesn’t persist at all. I invite you to stand by a 40lb cylinder of CO2, in a closed room, open it , and after a few minutes light a match. Nothing will happen except the match goes out. Now, i truly encourage you to do the same with a cylinder of Methane!!!!!
Suffice to say that a few bolts of lightning completely turns N into Ammonia and Co2 – the Ammonia being extremely soluble in water suppling N to the plants that stimulates green growth while CO2 provides the food that new stimulated growth requires.
Can morons, fools, and extremists please stop commenting!

Reply to  Lachaln Flawse
November 6, 2020 8:34 am

I’ve tried to walk away a few times, but I just can’t quite do it. You are stuck with this fool.

Reply to  griff
November 6, 2020 2:38 am

Does not change fred250’s comment; not one iota.

Typical giffiepoo comment; total lack of value, educational, information or other. Another abject religious devotional refusing logic, facts and reality comment.

Reply to  ATheoK
November 6, 2020 3:09 am

Perhaps griff thinks that cattle CREATE carbon !!!

Quite bizarre how ignorant one little trollette can be. !

Right-Handed Shark
Reply to  fred250
November 6, 2020 4:59 am

george moonbat of the grauniad said that very thing on a TV programme recently, Fred..

“I see them as carbon producing machines”, IIRC

grief thinks moonbat is some sort of deity..

Tom in Florida
Reply to  fred250
November 6, 2020 6:11 am

Right-Handed Shark November 6, 2020 at 4:59 am
Too bad IIRC isn’t correct. Lots of diamonds, coal, graphite et al being crapped out of them. Of course with those being so available, the values would plummet.

Reply to  griff
November 6, 2020 2:46 am

In the mean time, the UK’s green energy debacle looks like coming back to bite them,… 🙂

Right-Handed Shark
Reply to  griff
November 6, 2020 4:55 am

You know nothing about farming either grief..

Reply to  griff
November 6, 2020 12:36 pm

griff the useful idiot repeating the lies that have been formulated by activists that have never been subjected to scientific scrutiny .
Check this out griff
.All fodder consumed by farmed livestock has absorbed CO2 from the atmosphere to grow .
The tiny amount of methane emitted during the digestion process is broken down into CO2 and water vapour in about 10 years .
The process is a cycle griffe not one additional atom or molecule containing carbon is added to the atmosphere over the 10 year cycle .
Do you understand that griff?
It is a closed cycle .
Methane atmospheric levels flat-lined between 1999 and 2008 and then again started to rise .
So where was the problem?
World coal production had been stable during those years at around 4.7 billion tonnes and coal production started rising in 2008 and by 2018 had increased to over 8 billion tonnes .
Cows have no effect whatsoever on methane levels so if you want to blame something blame COAL
These are the facts that the Guardian will never tell griffe.
Livestock can graze and harvest pasture on land far to steep for cultivation and horticulture .
Well grazed land reduces the fire risk to almost zero and I would point out that the recent fires in the South Island of New Zealand happened because all farmed animals have been removed and the tussock scrub has taken over and a huge amount of dry combustible material was just waiting for a spark fire load has Grazing animals .
Still feeding the world with milk and meat products from zero carbon cows .

Reply to  griff
November 6, 2020 4:32 pm

So cows are able to beat the conservation matter law. Damn, as someone versed in chemistry I was never taught that.

Patrick MJD
Reply to  griff
November 6, 2020 6:29 pm

Keep digging that hole Griff as with every post you make you look foolish. But answer this, do you eat meat? I already know the answer, but post the truth for once to show your hypocrisy.

Tom Abbott
Reply to  fred250
November 6, 2020 7:14 am

“They [cows] are CARBON NEUTRAL !!”

That’s right! We ought to be paying farmers to raise more cows.

November 5, 2020 10:56 pm

I think there should be a Stupid Tax.

A Stupid Tax, which would disproportionately need to be levied on insane Leftist utterances, could easily pay off US’ $28 trillion national debt within a few months or even weeks.

The Stupid Tax would have the added bonus of perhaps curtailing some Leftist stupidity, although there could be some 1st Amendment legal challenges…

Reply to  SAMURAI
November 5, 2020 11:03 pm

How about disenfranchising government employees? They have vested interest in bigger governments. In California they vote for tax increases to fund their bloated state and local pensions. /sarc

Rich Davis
Reply to  Ralph Dave Westfall
November 6, 2020 2:27 pm

Not sarc
The government employees-Democrat lawmaker nexus is the reason that most “blue” states are essentially insolvent.

Reply to  SAMURAI
November 6, 2020 2:44 am

I like it SAMURAI!

That tax would in effect provide a measure for politicians, ‘Senator x pays millions in stupid tax!’.

Sadly, as the recent USA election proves along with past corruption of other information sources, e.g. wikipedia.
The left sought and controlled most news sources and alleged fact check groups.

Creating government sanctioned and/or supported information systems provided easily corrupted conduits to misinform civilians and government employees.

Curious George
Reply to  SAMURAI
November 6, 2020 7:56 am

Shouldn’t any Paris-Agreement related tax be strictly voluntary?

Jeff Alberts
Reply to  Curious George
November 6, 2020 9:30 am

I say let the French pay for it. It’s their agreement, after all.

Reply to  SAMURAI
November 6, 2020 8:42 am

the problem is that the average stupid does not have the 200,000 that it would take.

The stupids are a sink, and do not reasonably produce.

Best you could hope for is that the less stupids would refrain from acting out.

Reply to  DonM
November 6, 2020 11:40 pm

DonM- The Stupid Tax would be a progressive tax i.e. the higher the education/salary, the higher the Stupid Tax rate… LOL!

Reply to  SAMURAI
November 6, 2020 3:45 pm

You mean in addition to state and national lotteries?

November 5, 2020 11:01 pm

Doctor friend/ colleague once asked me what the difference in diet between Indonesians and Australians was, after working together for a year. I was living and working there at the time. Exclude the flavouring, we ate the same vegies. The only real difference was meat.
That country is growing fast. When I eventually repatriated, the middle class Indonesian kids were a good 30cm / 1 foot taller than the poor (I take no credit)
And intellectually, the middle class way outperformed the poor.

In recent years, after reviewing the studies, my wife and I have upped our meat consumption. As our kids grew up in Indonesia, our kids also are big meat eaters, and tall, and smart.

William Haas
November 5, 2020 11:09 pm

Even if not eating meat caused a reduction in CO2 emissions, the reduction in CO2 emissions would have no effect on climate because the climate sensitivity of CO2 is zero. After decades of effort, the IPCC does not know what the climate sensitivity of CO2 really is. They have unable to measure it because it is not there. The climate sensitivity of CO2 is zero.

Rich Davis
Reply to  William Haas
November 6, 2020 2:34 pm

I don’t care if it’s zero (doubt it) or it’s 1.7, it’s never going to be anything but a benefit. And eventually glaciation is coming. The more carbon we can liberate from its unfortunate sequestration in fossils, the better.

Reply to  William Haas
November 6, 2020 4:00 pm

It is easy to scare folks with no understanding of statistics with the POSSIBILTY of harm.
(Lots of chemical waste and nuclear accident fears as examples.)

The counter is to reverse the analysis and grant their basic assumptions and then ask “Given those assumptions, what impact would there be if the world tomorrow went vegan?” (Bjorn Lomborg type of analysis.) It is likely the resulting computation would surprise most “Greenies”.

November 5, 2020 11:16 pm

“Citizens in rich countries are eating well, he have to fix that”.

I’m living in Poland. Our food expendatures already take much higher part of our income than in most Western countries. I am extremely happy they tirelessly plan to push us into starvation in the future! This is exactly why we joined the EU!

Which is coincidentally introducing its new “Farm to Fork” strategy which will kill the agriculture. This whole depopulation idea won’t happen all by itself!

Rich Davis
Reply to  Laertes
November 6, 2020 2:42 pm

Pity Poland. 5 years dominated by the genocidal Nazis, then 45 years dominated by the USSR only to voluntarily join the EUssr. The last one is an own-goal.

Polexit for survival.

Patrick MJD
November 5, 2020 11:21 pm

“Fiona Harvey”

You first.

Reply to  Patrick MJD
November 6, 2020 5:12 am

She’s probably already a vegan

Coeur de Lion
November 6, 2020 12:17 am

The Guardian still touts ‘350ppm’ as the ‘safe level’ – is this the basis for McKinben’s cult? – while since the Paris Agreement CO2 has risen 11ppm and Greta Thunberg’s COVID catastrophe has not affected Mauna Loa one whit – it continues its saw-tooth climb. So, at some point in the future, there will arise a credibility problem at the Guardian editorial desk, say at 450ppm?

Reply to  Coeur de Lion
November 6, 2020 12:50 am

“there will arise a credibility problem at the Guardian editorial desk”

Its been there for about 30 year… at least

The Gruniad has basically ZERO credibility !

Ron Long
Reply to  Coeur de Lion
November 6, 2020 1:53 am

Coeur de Lion, this is the eye-opener, isn’t it? We have to damage our economy more than the Covid lockdowns, because that didn’t produce any change in atmospheric CO2. I’m going the other way as soon as I can, Argentina today eliminates actual quarantine for no reason, and maintains masks and social distancing. When we are near 2,000 ppm CO2 I might slow down.

Reply to  Coeur de Lion
November 6, 2020 4:17 pm

My critique of the current generations is that they seem to focus on the “History of Now”.

They seem immune from lessons from the past. (E.g. possible problems of Socialism despite formerly using Venezuela as a model and now ignoring its present state.)

My cynicism tells me they will ignore the previous alarmist predictions and pay attention to the next round of “doomsayers”; because “they believe in Science”.

Need I remind this forum of the failed predictions of Paul Erlich and his recent elevation to Royal Society genius?

November 6, 2020 12:19 am

Every single molecule of carbon (either in CO2 or CH4) “emitted” by domesticated animals came from the atmosphere (cows eating plants, plants absorb CO2 from atmosphere, cows “emitting” carbon back to the atmosphere which in turn is again absorbed into plants). This means there was not a single molecule of carbon added to to atmosphere. This means that the concentration of GHGs was not increased. If concentration of GHGs was not increased then there could be no contribution to warming (or so called climate change). Cows (domesticated animals) are not creating net new carbon (they are neither alchemists neither do they poses nuclear physics capabilities) molecules. Even if we remove all the domesticated animals, plant matter would still decompose or be eaten and decomposed by wild animals… So no gain in net new carbon added (concentration of GHGs) to the atmosphere…

Jeff Alberts
Reply to  Sam
November 6, 2020 9:21 am

I think the alarm comes from the industry behind cattle farming, not the actual cattle. Though you do see a lot of silly stories about such things from Chicken Littles.

November 6, 2020 12:26 am

Animal sh*t is good for the soil.
The fertility of the Great Plains is a by product of Bison dung.
Grain crops were a retrograde step.

Brian Johnston
November 6, 2020 12:34 am

It has nothing to do with climate or CO2. It is all a lie to drag us into a new socialist world order.
The Guardian has to know this.
We need more CO2 not less.

Reply to  Brian Johnston
November 6, 2020 2:14 am

The Guardian loves it.

November 6, 2020 1:12 am

Was this a question for the Trump vs Biden debates?

November 6, 2020 1:46 am

Ah, the dopey Fiona Harvey!

Here is one of her earlier efforts:

High Treason
November 6, 2020 1:59 am

Humans are omnivores. We are designed to eat meat as well as vegies. Eat your greens (green politicians are of not much other use) they say.
Humans have canine teeth that are designed to rip in to meat. If we were designed to NOT eat meat, why do we have them? Come on greenies-answer this. Meat makes the human brain better and the body taller. It will ne interesting to see how the combination of less brains and brainwashing goes-will the vegan children of brainwashed climate cult parents be able to tie up the organic shoe laces?

Reply to  High Treason
November 6, 2020 3:04 am

There are critical amino acids, vitamins and nutrients available in meat that are not easily available to human consumption in vegetative sources.
Scurvy and Rickets are well known and easily controlled dietary problems. Shortages of other critical amino acids and vitamins are not as easy to identify.

Hominy, i.e. the soaking of corn in a caustic solution is a form of Nixtamalization, a process that improves nutrition and digestibility of corn.

A serious deficiency of niacin (vitamin B3) and/or tryptophan can result in the disease Pellagra. The symptoms of Pellagra include diarrhea, dermatitis and dementia; if untreated Pellagra usually leads to death. This disease is most common in parts of the world where maize is a primary food source. In the early 1900s Pellagra was widespread in poorer regions within some southeastern states in the USA. Pellagra can be treated and cured, but it can be avoided by proper preparation of maize prior to use.

Traditional preparation of maize in southwestern United States, Mexico and into Central America includes processing the kernels by boiling them in alkaline water, usually containing lime, followed by a long soak period in the liquid. In some areas sodium carbonate is used. After the soak period the maize is washed multiple times to remove the lime and hulls. This process is called nixtamalization; lime reacts with the maize kernel to make niacin more available to the body. Other benefits include improved protein quality, increased calcium content and the reduction of aflatoxin concentration of masa products. “

It is astonishing that ancient South and North American’s figured this out, yet modern dietary religious advocates entirely misunderstand what a “complete diet” really means. Peoples who grew to a certain height in countries where meat was a rare luxury migrated to countries where meat was commonly available found their descendents growing substantially taller.
Quelle surprise!?

Reply to  High Treason
November 6, 2020 5:42 am

We also have forward looking eyes like hunters and not on the sides like ruminants. We also learned to master fire and cook with stuffings sauces and gravy. Praise be to Gaia.

November 6, 2020 2:13 am

They want us in lab meat and insects, and when they ban carbon emissions, Soylent Green is the only meat available.
We head towards socialist starvation.

Ed Zuiderwijk
November 6, 2020 2:50 am

This rubbish is based on two falsehoods: first, that Methane is an important greenhouse gas; it isn’t. Second, that eating meat is a contributor to a obesity crisis. It isn’t, quite the country, eating more meat and less carbs has been demonstrated over and over agin to be an effective method of losing weight.

Reply to  Ed Zuiderwijk
November 6, 2020 7:03 am

Quite the contrary…., agreed.
And Lord Monckton has testified here to that.

Matthew Sykes
November 6, 2020 4:18 am

List of milk consuming countries per capita.

Albania, number 6, is rich? Kazakhstan?

South Korea and Thailand, both rich, are way down the list.

For meat Bahamas and St Lucia rank high.

So this article is complete garbage, it wealth and dairy/meat consumption dont correlate.

Getting fed up of this blood letting angst BS now. Really fed up.

Reply to  Matthew Sykes
November 6, 2020 8:29 pm

Tell that to the market I regularly visit in France…HEY, you’re not allowed to sell cheese (400 different kinds in France),then the meat stall..
…HEY you gotta stop selling all that meat…. then go over to the vegetable stalls and start stacking up with nothing else?

What morons work in Guardian offices?

Don’t they ever go to eat at all?

eg. France, where people eat well, aren’t grossly obese, and enjoy good food and wine…
Oh forgot the wine…(agriculture) fossil fuels for running the tractors makes higher production certified..
no thanks for doing grape picking on horseback..fermentation makes loads of CO2, then the whole supply chain to get it on supermarket shelves….

Ah right, so that all has to go as well does it with the olive oil and healthy mediterranean diet too?
Who are these loons??

November 6, 2020 4:33 am

Gee whiz, and I just spent quality time at the grocery store yesterday. Does this mean I have to go back and stock up more than I already have? I want to see Fiona the Fluffbrain try to pry my packs of bacon (not ham, that’s different) from my hands.

What a self-righteous bimp.

Peta of Newark
November 6, 2020 5:29 am

I’ve said it before…

‘We’ are on the cusp of doing something so dumb as to extinguish ourselves

First exhibit being Japan just after WW2
They were introduced to hamburgers, laden with saturated fat and promptly, inside 1 generation grew to be 6″ taller.
They also became very good engineers, especially on ‘tiny’ intricate things
I say not

I assert that The Poor Diet mentioned there is in fact the plant based diet
I also assert that poor physical health (that is – a readiness to catch and possibly die from fairly innocuous bacteria, virus, environment whatever) is because of Poor Diet You know what I’m talking about

But also, Poor Diet brings on mental health problems
Witness skyrocketing depressions, autisms, downs, asbergers, alzheimers and a complete of honesty, respect for others in the fields of (especially) medicine, (climate science and not least, Politics
Plenty peeps will now tell you that the early signs of Alzheimer’s is visible on folks with nothing that pre-diabetes – easily two 3rds of the US population and 50% of everywhere else

We are in some really deep shit here because, the only significant thing left to eat on this planet is what causes all the above.
Cooked/processed starch = Sugar

Throw a few shapes around your living room, while any of us still can

Reply to  Peta of Newark
November 6, 2020 1:43 pm

I agree with what you have written above Peta .
During our recent electioneering before our Parliamentary election the Leader of the opposition party Judith Collins copped flak because of her comments about obese people when she said that every one has the option of limiting how much they eat .
Critics fired back and said that a lot of poorer people are obese because they have not got the money to buy better food . meat maybe?
When I was farming sheep the shearers were and still are paid per sheep shorn on a contract rate so shearing is one of the toughest jobs there is and the energy expended is immense .
The highest tally in my wool shed was 488 ewes shorn in a 9 hour day and that sheared went on to represent New Zealand at the world shearing Championships in the UK.
The shearers had to have a high protein diet , meat was essential .
There is so much garbage pedaled around meat and animal fats and we would have all died off long ago if these claims were true .
A lot of these claims have been debunked so now they are introducing a false narrative that cows and sheep are emitting methane that is heating the world .
Methane from livestock was first brought up at the Kyoto Climate Accord by activists ( how did they get to speak at a climate meeting ? ) and this claim has never been debated by scientists that live stock can increase global methane levels .

CD in Wisconsin
November 6, 2020 6:48 am

‘…Earlier this week, health professionals in the UK called for a tax on meat to help tackle the climate crisis and improve health…’

I remain totally unconvinced that so-called vice taxes actually do any good at all to alter people’s behavior so the behavior conforms to some bureaucrat’s or politician’s requirements. This idea that you can engineer the behavior of the masses as desired with vice taxes is arrogant and egotistical, and is probably nothing more than an excuse to take more of our money.

Politicians are playing God when they tell us or give us the impression that they can control the Earth’s climate and affect people’s behavior with money and the political power to tax and regulate the economy and our lives. With Biden in the White House (which is looking increasingly likely as I write this), we will be sadly stuck with a POTUS for the next four years who probably thinks that way, so look for the prices of food and energy (and who knows what else) to rise in the years ahead as he implements a climate activist agenda.

Trump had is chance to discredit the “science” behind all of this during the last four years, but did not. We may be paying the price for it in the years ahead.

Kevin Stall
Reply to  CD in Wisconsin
November 15, 2020 5:56 am

So if they want to see more animals killed off, then go ahead and tax meat. You will not pay to feed animals that have no use. A mass kill off will happen if we ever do go meatless. Think of all the spiecies that will go extinct. The rare meat animals that no longer, reeds of pig, sheep, cows.
Evernotice how in the UK animals are kept on land not practical for farming? Hillsides,

Harry Davidson
November 6, 2020 7:54 am

They are all vegetarians at the Graun, this is the usual virtuous “I strongly support increased taxation to achieve our objectives”, but tax someone else not me.

November 6, 2020 7:58 am

I adhere to a carnivore diet…they will have to pry the meat from cold dead hands.

November 6, 2020 8:24 am

Make any climate related tax voluntary and not mandatory for any US citizen or corporation, including the media or politicians and make the list “BY NAME” public by state. We’ll also publish the running count nationally on a monthly basis, and find out WHO truly believes in “CO2 induced Global Warming (now they use Climate Change).” When folks put their hard earned money where their mouth is, it’ll determine how serious people are! Scientists, Politicians, Media, and Corporate leaders who have constantly pushed for these taxes should pay double!

Tom in Florida
Reply to  James
November 6, 2020 9:57 am

The ability to pay extra tax voluntarily already exists in the U.S. Just write a check and send it in.
Of course, nobody has.

John F Hultquist
November 6, 2020 9:11 am

… well above [health] recommendations

In the USA, as the health recommendations {Note: in some cases these were forced on people} took hold over the last 50 years, the problem of obesity increased. Search ‘Images’ for – fat people –.

Food waste in many instances has been reduced in the production and storage systems – it is just good business. In homes, schools, and similar situations, waste is a costly issue.
Then there is the problem of damaged fruit. Search ‘Images” with this string – Apples on the ground under trees

A tax on meat: Meat is already expensive.
What is needed for health is a tax on inactivity. Watching television, playing video games, and talking on phones are not health activities.

November 6, 2020 9:28 am

Steak night tonight! Nice bottle of red wine to go with it.

November 6, 2020 9:43 am

Yes, tax it heavily so Dems lose faster in Congress and the WH and in states. Be bold and do it now, don’t wait.

November 6, 2020 10:07 am

The Mega Millions lottery jackpot includes a V8 truck, two guns, and a steak dinner. Second tier winners get carbon taxes paid for a month and a year’s supply of plastic items.

November 6, 2020 10:09 am

Farmers can adapt or join the coal miners at the gulag camps out in the districts.

Reply to  ResourceGuy
November 7, 2020 9:23 am

They sure are dumb to attack the very people who, if they wanted to, could all destroy their crops in protest.

November 6, 2020 10:23 am

Geez if eating meat is banned, even Hannibal Lecter will have to get counselling.
(But I believe he does also enjoy fava beans, and a nice chianti)

John Culhane
November 6, 2020 10:48 am

The foods we throw out most include salad, fruit, vegetables and bread.

Modern vegetarian diets in much of the Northern hemisphere are not possible for much of the year without cheap oil to transport the food to the cities from rural areas and more often from warmer climate zones, even growing tomatoes out of season requires cheap energy sources to do it at scale.

November 6, 2020 10:54 am

It’s pushing crap like this that will get people to think more realistically about CC. Messing with our energy is bad but telling us what to eat is over the line. What happened to the climate when herds of wild animals roamed the earth before man decided to eat and then raise them?

Monna Manhas
November 6, 2020 11:01 am

Clark told the Guardian: “Taxes might be part of the solution, but they will not be the only solution. If food taxes to reduce emissions are implemented, we need to make sure they are not regressive and do not have a large negative impact on the people least able to afford the tax.”

How do you tax food and make sure that it doesn’t have a large negative impact on poor people? Require you to provide proof of poverty at the grocery checkout in order to get an exemption?

November 6, 2020 11:13 am

Many years ago I conceived a story about a couple going out for a steak dinner. They had to have all sorts of medical exams and apply several months in advance for a state-granted license, limited to once per year max, for the dinner, and had to present the license for admission to the restaurant.

I didn’t think it could actually happen. Should have known better.

Buz Bohmeyer
November 6, 2020 11:44 am

Well….My take on all of this is…..’hold on….gotta go….the burgers are ready to come off the grill….’

November 6, 2020 11:49 am

Let them eat cannabis cake.

November 6, 2020 11:54 am

I have a better idea… “newspapers”.

Bruce of Newcastle
November 6, 2020 12:24 pm

Taxing meat will have zero impact. The tax would have to be gigantic to have any significant effect. People like to eat meat. It’s good for them. Humans have evolved to desire it.

The anti-smoking movement is a good example of what is possible. Up to a point taxes work to reduce smoking, but when the tax gets too high people just give up and buy their smokes from the black market. They want to smoke tobacco. (Same of course applies with marijuana market dynamics.)

Consequently all that will happen if meat taxes are high is to encourage a black market. And perhaps people will eat all the zoo animals, like they did in Venezuela in 2017.

Kevin Stall
November 6, 2020 12:45 pm

So they want all food animals to be destroyed. No one is going to pay to feed them so the whole herds will have to be destroyed. You can’t just let them go feral. It would defeat the purpose of allowing them. Just got to get rid of these species except maybe in a zoo.

That is how ridiculous all of this is.

Al Miller
November 6, 2020 4:00 pm

This is Bull, but the part you eat.
It never was about climate though was it, that’s rhetorical in case anyone’s wondering.
I wonder when more actual scientists will start to rebel against the trashing of their profession in the name of politicking…waiting.

November 7, 2020 7:54 am

Meat and fish are necessary for optimal intellectual performance. Eg.

Reply to  TomR
November 7, 2020 8:56 am

I don’t think that side-effect of their desired goal is unintentional.

Rod Evans
November 7, 2020 8:56 am

The take away from this story is. Don’t pay any attention to the Guardian. Do not read the Guardian and certainly don’t click on articles on line from the Guardian, because that provides them with income they do not deserve.
If you do as I suggest, you will be saving from extinction all those much loved and delicious animals we like to eat. The Greens want to destroy all farm animals , do they have a problem with life do you think?

%d bloggers like this:
Verified by MonsterInsights