For a bunch who blatherskite so much about ‘the science’, the Climate Cult are notably anti-science. Most especially, they absolutely will not accept any scientific evidence that contradicts their pet authoritarian nostrums.
Take, for example, their ‘eat ze bugs’ crusade against meat. In a crusade that is clearly ideological rather than scientific, the green loonies demand that we all stop eating meat and turn to ‘plant-based’ Frankenfoods. This, despite the fact that heavily processed, lab-made ‘plant-based foods’ suck up an astonishing amount of resources and energy.
Still, they argue that vegetarianism and veganism are ‘better for the planet’. Is it true, though?
A new study says not.
Eating a healthier diet rich in fruit and vegetables could actually be more harmful to the environment than consuming some meat, a US study has claimed.
As a farmer friend of mine used to point out, a fundamental deceit in the ‘meat uses more resources’ argument is that animal husbandry is a closed cycle. Pretending that all the water, etc, that an animal consumes during its life only ever ends up as meat ignores the obvious fact that animals piss and shit. A lot. Which is a whole lot of nutrients that go back into the environment.
Lettuce is “over three times worse in greenhouse gas emissions than eating bacon”, according to researchers from the Carnegie Mellon University who analysed the impact per calorie of different foods in terms of energy cost, water use and emissions.
So, just have a bacon sandwich and skip the lettuce and tomato?
Naturally, though, anyone who wants to get published these days has to pay lip-service to the Climate Cult dogmas.
Published in the Environment Systems and Decisions journal, the study goes against the grain of recent calls for humans to quit eating meat to curb climate change.
Researchers did not argue against the idea people should be eating less meat, or the fact that livestock contributes to an enormous proportion of global emissions – up to 51 per cent according to some studies.
But they found that eating only the recommended “healthier” foods prescribed in recent advice from the US Department of Agriculture increased a person’s impact on the environment across all three factors – even when overall calorie intake was reduced.
That doesn’t add up. If eating the Cult-approved diet increases one’s impact across all three factors (energy cost, water use and emissions), then eating such a diet must contribute more (according to their own argument) to climate change.
Paul Fischbeck, study co-author and CMU’s professor of social and decisions sciences, said: “Lots of common vegetables require more resources per calorie than you would think.
“Eggplant, celery and cucumbers look particularly bad when compared to pork or chicken.”
The initial findings of the study were “surprising”, according to senior research fellow Anthony Froggatt at Chatham House, an independent think-tank which is currently running a project looking at the link between meat consumption and greenhouse gas emissions.
Stand by for the intellectual pea-and-shells game.
Maintaining calorie intake but completely shifting to healthy foods increased energy use by 43 per cent, water use by 16 per cent and emissions by 11 per cent.
But surprisingly, even if people cut out meat and reduced their calories to USDA-recommended levels, their environmental impact would increase across energy use (38 per cent), water (10 per cent) and emissions (6 per cent).
Then there’s this deceitful argument.
Many writers have pointed out that this analysis, led and promoted by Carnegie Mellon University, is misleading because it compares the amount of natural resources required to produce bacon vs lettuce per calorie – not per serving.
As critics note, you have to eat many, many, many servings of lettuce to get as many calories as you would from a serving of bacon. So it’s no surprise that it takes more resources to grow that much lettuce.
But there’s a hidden agenda in arguments like the above. Pay attention and you’ll spot the real end game:
Simply reducing the number of calories consumed, without changing the proportion of meat and other food types, cut combined emissions, energy and water use by around 9 per cent.
But the Climate Cult’s target reduction in emissions is 50 per cent by 2030. Given that the study modelled the nine per cent emissions reduction on a nine per cent calorie cut, it follows that the Climate zealots would want us to reduce calorie intake by 50 per cent. Which would bring the average adult’s intake to well below necessary daily levels.
So, it’s not even ‘eat ze bugs’ any more, it’s ‘Go Hungry for Gaia’.
