The War on Meat By Richard Miller (London)
The war on meat in the UK, and elsewhere continues, all under the guise of climate change. It is, in my opinion based upon bogus “science” but that is not stopping the elites. Here is a survey of what they are up to.
“Families are facing a tax on their lifestyles as Boris Johnson ponders new carbon taxes and charges for Britain that would see higher prices on meat and cheese at the supermarket and on gas for their hobs and boilers at home.
The Prime Minister has ordered Whitehall departments to look at how much greenhouse gas emissions produced by different sectors of the economy cost society.
At present, only airlines and power generators are charged for their emissions, but ministers want to extend the 'polluter pays' principle to all sectors. This could lead to a hike in prices for goods such as beef, lamb and cheese, or more heavily polluting forms of heating such as gas.
No costs have been mooted by Whitehall, but recent studies by a team at Oxford University have calculated that surcharges of 40 per cent on beef, 25 per cent on oils, 20 per cent on milk, 15 per cent on lamb and 10 per cent on chicken would reduce emissions and reduce consumption in the way the PM wants.
This means that the cost of a sirloin steak, currently around £4.50 in the supermarket, would be around £6.30 and mince would rise £1.46 to £5.02. Olive oil would increase from £3.75 to £4.69.
Four pints of milk would go from £1.09 to £1.32, four lamb chops up to £7.50 from £6, six chicken breasts up 50p per pack to £5.50 while a whole chicken would increase in price by 28p to £3.78; Eggs would rise 5p to 94p and sugar would increase by a penny to 66p.
Britain's meat industry have long believed farmers are 'unfairly' criticised by environmentalists and consumers will also pay the price.
Neil Shand, from the National Beef Association, said: 'Britain's meat industry is given a lot of unfair criticism over its environmental impact.' National Pig Association chairman Richard Lister added: 'There has been a heavy bias against meat when it comes to climate change discussions.'”
https://www.theguardian.com/world/2021/may/29/france-outrage-delight-meat-ditch-reliance-climate
“The country that gave the world foie gras, coq au vin and le steak frites is being asked to ditch its meat-heavy diet in favour of vegetarian options, as France embarks on a historic “culture shift” that will bring sweeping changes to all aspects of society, the French environment minister has said.
Meat will be off the menu at least one day a week in schools, while vegetarian options will be standard in public catering, and chefs will be trained in how to prepare healthy and toothsome plant-based meals.
The proposals have sparked uproar and howls of outrage among the traditionalists of French cuisine, but have been welcomed by many young people.
Barbara Pompili, minister for ecological transition, said the country’s wide-ranging plan to reach net zero greenhouse gas emissions would improve health and wellbeing, while providing a big boost to the economy.
“Developing a vegetarian menu offer is about freedom as much as ecology,” she said. “Vegetarians must be able to find menus that cater to their needs in their canteens. This is especially true for young people, among whom the proportion of vegetarians is twice as high as the rest of the population.”
The climate and resilience bill, now under examination by the higher chamber of the French parliament, includes: one compulsory vegetarian menu a week in all schools; one daily vegetarian choice in all state-run canteens, including government establishments and universities; training for canteen staff to guarantee high-quality vegetarian menus; and the stipulation that from 2024, 60% of the meat served in mass catering must meet minimum quality requirements, which are likely to favour meat produced in France over imports.
Pompili said the changes would boost French farming by emphasising local food, while reducing carbon.
“[About] 15% of the world’s greenhouse gas emissions and 91% of deforestation in the Amazon rainforest are linked to livestock farming,” she said. “So developing a vegetarian offer means acting for the climate, against deforestation, while giving canteens more room to purchase high-quality, locally produced meat that is better for the environment. Everyone wins.”
That reassurance is key, in a country that just two years ago saw months of violent protests by the “gilets jaunes”, sparked in late 2018 by a row about fuel price rises that were brought in on environmental grounds but which many felt unfairly penalised people living in the countryside.
Pompili acknowledged the mistakes of the past: “I do not want to leave anyone out from these policies. We will make sure that people who are affected are helped. This is true of every single measure we are taking.”
She told the Guardian: “We will only have a successful environmental transition if everyone is onboard. There is resistance and push back out there … it’s quite difficult to travel in rural areas without cars. A lot of people in rural areas feel they have been sacrificed. We have to be very attentive to their needs, and make sure we listen to and support them.”
The government has set up a citizens’ assembly to help to guide policy and has found that once people have been informed about the science of the climate crisis, they tend to be “really enthusiastic and gung-ho” about taking action, she said.
Pompili said her aim was to make it easy for people to lead environmentally friendly lives, by providing greener options and removing some of the highest-carbon alternatives. There will be more room for cycling in French cities, buildings will be renovated throughout the country, and buyers of appliances from smartphones to washing machines will have a guarantee that they can be repaired if they go wrong, instead of needing to throw them away.
She said: “We are trying to bring about a culture shift for French people – we want the environment to be a reflex for people. Every single person in France can play a role in environmental protection. This is about people’s daily lives.”
France’s economic stimulus package is one of the world’s greenest: of the €100bn the government is spending to revive the economy after the Covid-19 shock, at least €30bn will go on low-carbon projects.
The French are also working internationally, with the UK, to ensure that vital UN climate talks, called Cop26, to be held later this year in Glasgow, result in the full implementation of the 2015 Paris agreement. “France has a special responsibility,” she said.”
“A new controversy has broken out in Spain, this time over its love of steak.
The link between red meat consumption and climate change was made by Minister of Consumer Affairs Alberto Garzón in a video published on his Twitter account Wednesday. People should eat a more varied diet, with less animal products, because it is healthier and better for the environment: “I don’t want to scold anyone, but to reflect on this before the problem becomes chronic.”
Garzón touched a nerve. Data shows consumers increased their intake of meat by 10.5% last year to around 50 kilos (110 pounds) per person — about double the recommended amount. The industry generates 2.5 million jobs nationally and nearly 9 billion euros ($10.7 billion) in exports.
Within less than 24 hours, the six-minute video racked up more than half a million views, and got the attention of Garzón’s colleagues. “Our cattle farmers are being subjected to criticism that’s deeply unfair,” said Luis Planas, Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food. “They deserve respect.” …”
Peter Singer, a philosopher, and leading animal righter, has this to say against beef.
“If the sound of beef sizzling on the grill brings tears of joy to your eyes, you’re a real beefatarian.” That’s the opening line of a TV ad produced by a European advertising campaign called Proud of European Beef.
Just more advertising silliness? No, because the European Union is paying 80% of the cost of it.
The United Nations Food and Agriculture Organization’s 2013 report “Tackling Climate Change Through Livestock” states that beef contributes 41% of the greenhouse gas emissions from the entire livestock sector and also has the highest emissions intensity — that is, the highest emissions per unit of protein — of any animal product. That is largely because ruminants belch and fart methane, an extremely potent greenhouse gas. As a result, rearing beef cattle brings about, on average, six times the contribution to global warming as nonruminant animals (for example, pigs) producing the same quantity of protein.
Since that report, the case against beef has strengthened. In 2015, a report from London’s Royal Institute of International Affairs pointed out that worldwide, meat and dairy consumption are rising at a rate that, if projected to 2050, would use 87% of the total quantity of emissions that is compatible with the Paris climate agreement’s objective of staying below a 2-degree Celsius increase in temperature.
A study published in Science in 2018 indicates that producing protein from soybeans in the form of tofu creates only 4% of the emissions required to produce the same quantity from beef cattle, while peas and nuts can both produce protein for less than 1% of emissions from beef cattle.
To meet the 2-degree target, the EU is aiming to be carbon-neutral by 2050. There is now a solid body of evidence that says this cannot be done without a global shift away from meat. Yet the European Commission spent 252 million euros ($298 million) promoting meat and dairy products from 2016 to 2020, compared with 146 million euros advertising fruit and vegetables.
“If you support sustainable farming by choosing European beef, you are real beefatarians,” says the Proud of European Beef advertisement — but without offering any explanation of why European beef is sustainable.
Climate targets are not the only things being undermined by the EU’s beef promotion. Its “Beating Cancer Plan” acknowledges that red and processed meats have been linked to higher risks of cancer. That view is shared by the World Health Organization, which lists processed meats, such as meats treated with salt, as Group 1 carcinogens — that is, products known to cause cancer. Red meat — beef, lamb, and pork — is listed as a Group 2A carcinogen, indicating that it probably causes cancer.
The European Commission has said it “will review, and where necessary propose to revise, all relevant policy instruments to deliver the additional emission reductions.” An international group of more than 60 scientists, including Jane Goodall and Bill McKibben, has called on the commission to align its promotion of agricultural products with the goals of avoiding catastrophic climate change and improving public health.
Arguably, beef advertising should go the same way as tobacco advertising. Before we get to that point, the least governments could do is avoid paying for it. But the EU is not alone in failing to stand up to the meat industry.
Americans eat four times as much beef as the world average, and beef production alone is responsible for more than 3% of U.S. greenhouse gas emissions. American beef, dairy and pork producers are heavily subsidized, both directly and by agricultural support that makes animal feed extremely cheap.
As a candidate for president, Joe Biden called climate change “the No. 1 issue facing humanity” and “the No. 1 issue for me.” Within days of taking office, he appeared to live up to that statement by placing a moratorium on oil and gas leases in the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge, scrapping the Keystone XL pipeline and announcing that the U.S. would rejoin the Paris agreement.
But when it comes to reducing emissions from agriculture, Biden’s announced plans do not go beyond incentives for sequestering more carbon in the soil and encouraging the use of additives in cattle feed to reduce methane emissions — a nice idea, but it’s likely to take many years before it is used on a scale that would have a significant effect.
Eating meat is not just a personal preference. The way that the animals eaten are raised and killed has long made it a legitimate matter of public concern. Now that we can see that eating red meat affects the entire planet in a manner that none of us want, it is time for governments to end their support for it.”
I wonder how the Left square their anti-meat rhetoric with multiculturalism where people like the Australian Aborigines, and Africans eat meat, and always have. But, to answer my own question, I guess that was not beef from cattle, so they get a pass, but modern African do. Anyway, we have to organise to save one of our most previous rights, to eat juicy beef. Freedoms come and go, but to lose the right to eat beef, which in the past made us human, is to revert back into the very beasts we eat. I say: NO!
References from:
http://www.occidentaldissent.com/2021/07/09/bloomberg-steak-loving-spain-is-facing-a-meat-reckoning/
Comments