this is bad enough without mentioning the elephant in the room - doubling CO2 will have a negligible effect on global warming because of the saturation effect:
I donât know what itâs like in the UK but in the US, a huge market, the over consumption of meat and dairy is ludicrous. They have things like cheese stuffed pizza crusts, cheesy this and cheesy that. And the cheese is not even real cheese, which one can eat in small quantities and savour its sublime flavour. Serving sizes (large) and frequency (very frequent) of eating meat are crazy and again, savouring rather than gobbling is better imo.
People and the environment would be much better off if the majority of US citizens had a healthier relationship with food.
I believe that the numbers of animals raised for meat and dairy to feed that appetite is ridiculous and harmful to the environment. As a citizen of the world, I would welcome a general reduction in consumption, especially over consumption, of meat and dairy.
We are all entitled to our own beliefs but to force hundreds of thousands out of work and into poverty needs to have a clear justifiable reason - the links I gave are just 2 of many that show CO2 and methane have little impact on global warming. In fact CO2 is clearly one of the most essential gases for nature, without it the planet will die, and the more we have the better the environment likes it. Many scientists now accept this see: http://hharde.de/index_htm_files/Opinion-Draft-Law%20-%20Reduction%20GHG%20Emissions.pdf
Interesting dilemma. In isolation I would have thought that reduced meat and dairy consumption was a good thing. Reductions in car use tooâŚspecies are disappearing due to loss of habitat and pollution and it wonât be long before we are one of them.
OTOH I doubt there is good thinking behind this plan; no doubt many will promote it partly as they believe itâs the right thing to do but also because itâs been made in their own personal interest. And there will be forces higher up pulling ALL the strings for their own benefit.
At the end of the day, once the controls have been tightened up, the long term situation is likely to be one of discrete predation. Itâs not that capitalists never do that sort of thing; plenty of examples, when the opportunity has been less obvious than it is now when you look at their plans. A global CBDC will keep everyone on a leash.
The best I can see that people can do is to challenge these powerful forces somehow.
Canât be done if the main priority is three holidays abroad a year and getting a new smartphone IMO. Resisting will likely mean short term âdiscomfortâ.
Another WUWT article points to a new report that argues plants have been absorbing 31% more CO2 than scientists had thought! Clearly science is not settled!
" Oops, Science Was âSettledââUntil It Wasnât: Plants Absorb 31% More COâ Than We Thought" ( https://wattsupwiththat.com/ )
In isolation, I would agree with you. However, there are many other factors here and not just about CO2.
Meat farming, when mixed with appropriate agriculture, actually make a significant contribution to soil health. This leads to massive increases in the soil being able to âinfiltrateâ rain water reducing flooding and improved quality and yield of crops.
Reducing meat consumption, is just another part of the WEF depopulation agenda.
following on from the finding that 31% more of CO2 is absorbed by plants we now see that an additional 7% CO2 has been found to be absorbed by the oceans:
I agree that there are benefits to raising animals. Iâm frustrated that itâs presented as if we have to choose between polar opposites. No meat versus over consumption.
Looks like the legislation to ensure all new houses are built with heat pumps and EV chargers to hit net Zero targets has fucked up.
Reading council is not alone in saying larger housing developments wonât be able to secure enough energy from the grid to meet the councilâs requirements if they have heat pumps or electric vehicle (EV) charging points.