Climate scientists: We must all be eating impossible burgers by 2030, or else

I don't know what's stranger--the fact that a local TV station's website carried this foolishness or that there is even a concept called 'peak meat.'

The letter, signed by 50 experts in the field, said that if the livestock sector were to continue on its present trajectory, it would account for almost half of the emissions target by 2030.... The letter said the process of returning areas of farmland to their natural state "must begin immediately to be effective within the required timescale of reaching net zero emissions by 2050."

They warned that high- and middle-income countries should not outsource livestock production to other countries but instead reduce demand for livestock products in order to meet the terms of the Paris climate change agreement.

Since the first Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change assessment report in 1990, the production of meat, milk, and eggs increased from 758 million tonnes to 1.247 billion tonnes in 2017, the scientists said, citing FAO data, and it is projected to increase further.

"Even if everything was done, it doesn't mean other sectors don't need to change," added Harwatt. "Every industry needs to change deeply and rapidly.

What's lost in all this is that over the last three decades or so, the global population has enjoyed a roughly 66% increase in the supply of delicious, nutritious protein-rich meat, dairy and eggs.  Better still, because of our bounty, production is projected to increase further. Why is this a bad thing?

Billions of tons of more food feeds more people. Well fed people are healthier, happier and more productive than the starving masses these pointy-headed numbskulls were warning us about since the 1960's. Since 1960, global population has moe than doubled. Over the  same time period, global food production has more than tripled.

You are feeding more people than ever before. How dare you!

This was not supposed to be. We were supposed to be having global wars, famines and general catastrophe, said neo-Malthusians like Lester Brown and Paul Ehrlich. They've been wrong for fifty-plus years but everyone from CNN to the local news babes still takes them seriously.

They're clever marketers, though. They're now claiming to developed meat that tastes better than meat. Don't fall for it, folks.

Sorry, y'all. If it didn't graze around on four legs and say "moo," "oink" or "cluck you," then no thanks unless it's a side dish.

Extra point: Is 'peak meat' like 'peak oil?' Because that's not happening, either. 

For climate change zealots, it's 1967 all over again.

There are too many people on the planet, and we have to ACT NOW! if we want to avoid an unmitigated catastrophe.

Via Bloomberg (I know...)

More than 11,000 experts from around the world are calling for a critical addition to the main strategy of dumping fossil fuels for renewable energy: there needs to be far fewer humans on the planet. ...

The scientists make specific calls for policymakers to quickly implement systemic change to energy, food, and economic policies. But they go one step further, into the politically fraught territory of population control. It “must be stabilized—and, ideally, gradually reduced—within a framework that ensures social integrity,” they write.

We've heard this before, haven't we? I was all of five years old when this was written in 1967, and today I'm really glad that the world didn't end before I had finished puberty:

It is already too late for the world to avoid a long period of famine, a Stanford University biologist said Thursday.

Paul Ehrlich said "the time of famine is upon us" and will be at its worst and most disastrous by 1975.

He said that the population of the United States is already too big, that birth control may have to be accomplished by making it involuntary and by putting sterilizing agents into staple foods and drinking water. And that the Roman Catholic Church should be pressured into going along with routine measures of population control.

Avowed Socialist Bernie Sanders says that the Climate Change thing is an "existential threat" to the U.S. and the world. As a result, he says he'd be all for imposing birth control and supports abortion in third world countries to curtail population growth.

Here's an old, white, rich American authoritarian promoting policies that keep poor brown people from reproducing. Does the left really want to have a conversation about racism?

This serious contender for the Democrat nomination for President of the United States advocates a policy that prevents other races from becoming too numerous. He is polling within a few points of winning the nomination. Just a decade or so ago, he wouldn't even be within musket range of the ship of state. Yet here he is, pimping eugenics to cheering crowds and is probably getting a big chunk of delegates, maybe enough to be the nominee.

Remember, in 1967 this country was being torn apart by racial strife. The Democrats were the ones running around with hoods and burning crosses, bombing black churches and spying on people like Martin Luther King. That was the political and social environment that gave us Ehrlich's screed on population control.

Margaret Sanger, the founder of Planned Parenthood, promoted abortion in the early part of the 20th century as a means of keeping the black population from growing too fast. It had nothing to do with women's "reproductive rights." Leftists are busy today trying to scrub her record and rewrite history, but Sanger was a monster who wanted to use the healthcare system to achieve what the real Nazis did with concentration camps.

The changing climate isn't an existential threat to us. The authoritarians who seek to control every aspect of human life are.

Too funny NOT to watch: Climate change activists can't explain what they're protesting.

How do you know when religious fervor crosses over into the danger zone of cult behavior? One good indication is when you believe in something so fervently that the ability to articulate your beliefs has has escaped you.

Surely... if you're all about something, you can explain what it is about that something that you're all about.

This is... Hilarious.

---

---

Is this cultish? I mean, at least devout Catholics can explain why they abstain from meat during Lent and why they believe in the Sacraments. Devout Protestants can tell you why they abstain from alcohol. They're not cultish. They're merely religious.

What are these folks?

I remember a Peanuts cartoon panel from my early youth that said, "It doesn't matter what you believe in as long as you're sincere." This was sometime between 1968 and 1971, which was about the same time that Peanuts' creator Charles Schulz was said to have begun chasing young skirts and experimenting with certain psychoactive... substances. Maybe that's some of what's going on here, too.

I mean, if you're a left-wing climate change wacko, what better way to start the protest day with a few herbal supplement bumps known for their deletory effects on short term memory?

Maybe this just what these people do for a living. Since no one with a degree in gender or culture studies has sky high earning prospects in a skills economy, ya gotta do something to earn some cash and keep the bowls full. Why not hire on with a professional protest organizer, dress up, and show up? It's not like anyone's gonna actually ask you wtf you're doing here, right?

Is Climate Change a priority with voters?

"This survey from Morning Consult comes out at a particularly apt time. We’ve just finished the “climate strike” where students and teachers walked out in protest of a lack of action by the government to combat global warming. There was a big meeting at the UN on the subject. A teenage girl has been scolding the leaders of the free world and the cable news networks have been eating it up. The 2020 Democratic hopefuls were up in arms because there wasn’t a separate debate dealing only with that subject."

A survey conducted by the nonprofit American Council for Capital Formation along with Morning Consult showed the top five priorities among likely 2020 voters are (in order, with percentages): the economy (19), health care (16), national security (8), gun policy (8), and seniors’ issues (8).

After those issues, climate change was tied with immigration at 7 percent.

A slight majority of respondents also said they had no opinion, or had not heard, of the Green New Deal, the sweeping climate plan originally proposed by freshman representative Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez (D., N.Y.) in February and championed by the progressive wing of the Democratic Party.

https://hotair.com/archives/jazz-shaw/2019/09/25/poll-climate-change-isnt-priority-voters/

A majority of voters don't know about or have no opinion on... the proposed takeover of the energy resources utilization of the United States? That's either scary or hilarious and I haven't decided which.

About St. Greta... From another thread: I pity the poor girl. She's not only developmentally challenged, she has obviously been pampered, groomed, indoctrinated and shamelessly used by her adult handlers.

First they try to use her as club to beat down opposition to their agenda of subjugation. Then when the agenda is challenged by bona fide grownups, her handlers and newly developed sycophants retreat behind her like her youth and innocence were some kind of shield.

She's the modern day Samantha Smith. I pray she doesn't die in a similarly mysterious accident after her usefulness to the left has run its course.