Eating less meat won’t ‘save the planet’


4.6 10 votes
Article Rating
Newest Most Voted
Inline Feedbacks
View all comments
February 21, 2023 2:07 pm

Now I’m hungry. “Mmmmm Burger.” (Thanks, Homer,)


February 21, 2023 2:12 pm

Kale is great. It is what my food eats.

Reply to  Giving_Cat
February 21, 2023 3:13 pm

actually they won’t. throw kale and/or zucchini in front of starving deer and they just move on.

Reply to  heme212
February 21, 2023 4:16 pm

Chickens go nuts for it.

Reply to  QODTMWTD
February 21, 2023 4:18 pm

my next experiment.

Reply to  QODTMWTD
February 21, 2023 4:19 pm

but don’t they also eat pebbles?

Michael S. Kelly
Reply to  QODTMWTD
February 21, 2023 6:05 pm

Our chickens eat almost anything, gleefully. Some of their favorite snacks are things they actually can’t metabolize, e.g. the cheese in left over macaroni and cheese. At the combination general store and veterinary clinic where we buy our pullets, an old lady behind the grocery counter told my wife how much she enjoyed watching her chickens eat yogurt. “It’s redneck TV,” she said. But we’ve crossed dairy off the snack list. They do love it, and it doesn’t appear to harm them, but it does make their yard rather…fowl.

Gunga Din
Reply to  Michael S. Kelly
February 23, 2023 1:14 pm

Reminds me of one of Jeff Foxworthy’s Redneck jokes.
“If you think ‘Silence of the Lambs’ is referring to how the sheep get quit when someone approaches the barn, you might be …” 😎

Tom Halla
February 21, 2023 2:27 pm

Most grazing land is not suitable for growing grains or row crops, so the comparison is bogus.

Reply to  Tom Halla
February 21, 2023 6:20 pm

In the video it says 2/3 is not arable, and only 1/3 is arable.

February 21, 2023 3:18 pm

Whoever wrote that flick is misinformed about the influence of methane on climate. Methane in the earth’s atmosphere is not worse than CO2, its less, much less. The behavior of methane mentioned in this flick are based on the measured effects in laboratory tests in what is called a “Standard Atmosphere.” A standard atmosphere is one consisting of oxygen, nitrogen, argon and a few other non-heat-trapping gasses with no water vapor present. The real atmosphere has lots of water vapor but it varies with temperature, altitude and other factors so is left out of the “standard atmosphere” when measuring infrared effects. The result is that they get large effects for CO2 and methane. But when measured in a real atmosphere with water vapor present, the numbers are much much smaller because water vapor intercepts almost all of the infrared energy that CO2 and methane can act on leaving little for additional carbon dioxide and methane to act on. William Happer and William Wijngaarden, both atmosphere physicists, recently reported on the true effects of CO2 and methane in a real atmosphere, the earth’s atmosphere actually, and found a miniscule effect from doubling the current methane concentration in air resulting in an undetectably small temperature effect and a larger but still small effect from doubling CO2 – no more than a 1C increase maximum. Of course, people who write climate hysterics like to use the standard atmosphere numbers because they look really scary.

AGW is Not Science
Reply to  Denis
February 21, 2023 8:41 pm

And even what Happer and Wijngaarden “find” is STILL based on “all other things held equal.”

Once we move from that to reality, the supposed “effect” of doubling atmospheric CO2 cannot be distinguished from ZERO. Which is what observations support.

AGW is Not Science
Reply to  Denis
February 22, 2023 6:34 am

Anyone who thinks methane has ANY “influence on climate” is misinformed.
February 21, 2023 3:50 pm

The video is very clever propaganda for man-made climate change…
And i’m no fan of man-made climate change…
Reply to
February 21, 2023 4:10 pm

Clarity: And i’m no fan of the idea of man-made climate change…

Reply to
February 21, 2023 10:18 pm

Do you mean that it’s “very clever” because it begins with the assumption that man-made-climate-change is significant, or do you have another reason?

February 21, 2023 4:17 pm

Basically a non-solution to a non-problem.

February 21, 2023 5:01 pm
Reply to  Sweet Old Bob
February 21, 2023 10:28 pm

Well, unless there are nationally-enforced “ration-cards” like in WWII, this won’t really ration anything. Start at Sainsbury’s, and if insufficient, Asda, Tesco or Morrison’s would be happy to fill the balance!
Also, try telling the our British or Australian colleagues that “there will be no meat-and-two-veg until further notice”.
A household “victory” (against stupidity, in this case) garden might solve the “two veg” problem as well.

Last edited 1 month ago by sleat
February 21, 2023 5:26 pm

No, but it will make many more liberals unhealthy and perhaps dead which would be good for the environment. They seem to like to glass over large area for solar projects, create bird choppers that send sounds that hurt the whales, want to dig up every cubic inch of the planet in search of metals to fuel their ‘clean’ energy demands and so forth… The world would be better off without their ideals.

Mike McMillan
February 21, 2023 11:39 pm

No cows? Corfam® shoes!

Ed Zuiderwijk
February 22, 2023 3:19 am

Irrespective of whether Methane is a potent greenhouse gas, it is irrelevant. Free methane oxidises in days back to carbon dioxide.

Herbivores eat grass, grass grows on carbon dioxide, water, sunlight and some minerals. Every carbon atom in the herbivore was not long ago in a grass, and not long before that in a carbon dioxide molecule floating around. Every single one, not one more, not one less. When the herbivore dies, is eaten and the eater dies, every carbon atom either reappears as carbon dioxide or is sequestered somehow in oily residues.

A cow, therefore is either a carbon sink or neutral for the carbon dioxide inventory. And its farts are included in that.

Herbivores are biological machines that convert grass, inedible by humans, into high quality protein that can and need be eaten by other creatures. Mother nature knew this about a billion years ago when it invented carnivores.

Tom Abbott
Reply to  Ed Zuiderwijk
February 22, 2023 4:38 am

“A cow, therefore is either a carbon sink or neutral for the carbon dioxide inventory.”

That’s the bottom line.

It’s ok to have that hamburger, even if you think CO2 is dangerous (it’s not).

February 22, 2023 7:40 am

Given that meat is essentially all part of the carbon cycle and not much to do with that horrid fossil carbon, farmers should be claiming subsidies, credits and tax credits for making more meat !!

Last edited 1 month ago by philincalifornia
February 22, 2023 11:33 am

One thing we know for sure about people in general is there will always be self righteous power grubbing rule makers. This is the reason liberty is a relatively new and unique principle….usually the grubbers sustain a structure of control forever. In the end, we will all vote with our dollars to buy and not to buy meat until the green gestapo haul off our rabbits, chickens, goats, pigs, Chinchillas, Guinea pigs, Cattle, Ducks and geese. our fish, shrimp and steel head trout. We live in an age of mountebanks both human and their representative AI designed in their mountebank image.

Last edited 1 month ago by JC
Reply to  JC
February 22, 2023 11:51 am

If by our liberty we wreck the earth by our natural human ecosystem then we have to chalk up to nature since we are a product of nature. Humanity is not some sub-nature artifice. Yet it is the height of modern grandiosity to think that the natural ecosystems of the earth including the human ecosystem can be centrally planned, controlled and managed without doing violence to human liberty. Let liberty have it’s way and people will adequately steward the earth…. this is how nature works.. It’s when power becomes lopsided and liberty is lost all hell breaks loose and stuff becomes grossly deformed. Time to hit the history books.

Gunga Din
February 23, 2023 1:16 pm

If people don’t eat animals, what will?

%d bloggers like this:
Verified by MonsterInsights