Meat- it's going to burn the planet!!

Some hyperbole told to a student...

I once went to a vegetarian restaurant. Some friends of mine who happen to be vegetablists decided to go out for some sort of celebration the exact reasons for which are lost in the mists of antiquity. Nevertheless, they decided to invite me to their soiree. I was dubious about the restaurant, but I like these folks and so I trotted along.

This is the sort of eatery in which the furniture is all second hand. I think that they call it “up cycled” these days because no one seems able to describe anything in an unambiguous manner. There were plenty of left wing placards- posters about meetings of green eco- mentalists and the socialist workers party together with invitations to yoghurt weaving classes, how to make your own shoes from things you find in mountain clearings and tie die instructions. In the background was the usual spangly multi coloured decor. It looked like the inside of a hippies’ purse.

Anyway, we all managed to find chairs that didn’t rock or feel like they were going to break apart when you sat on them and I regarded the menu. The starters looked like it might not be as bad as all that- cheesy garlic bread, mixed olives, bread rolls and the like, but as soon as I arrived at the mains, I knew we were in the world of tiredness, digestive difficulty and new age woo woo. “Buddha Bowl” stands out- vegetables, either roasted or left out in the sun, (why?), toasted seeds and pitta. Also high on the list of woe was “nut burger” or “lentil lasagne.” By the way, what on God’s earth is a “Homity”?

What was I going to order? One by one my friends ordered their chosen repasts and then all eyes turned to me. I decided that perhaps I would try to lighten the mood a tad- we’re out for an evening after all. “Where’s the meaty section?” I enquired with a bit of a grin. “The Beefeater down the road has a veggie section, so where’s your hearty steak pie or home made fish and chips?”

The acetic looking and rather smug fellow who was waiting on us gave me a look that was something similar to the sort of gaze he might give an item he had found at the bottom of his garden that he felt belonged in a skip. “We don’t have a meaty section here,” he drawled, “this is a vegetarian restaurant.” With that it also became clear that humour was not permitted here.

I ended up with some of those crisps of the kind that Darth Vader eats, (triangular mouth you see) with some avocado and cheese. Fortunately, sensing that the diet on offer would not be to my liking, I had visited Burger King on the way there, so that was enough for me. Needless to say, I was not invited to that place again. Who knows? I may still be on some vegan blacklist somewhere.

The reason for this diversion into history was to preface something I read from the Climate Change Committee recently. For those of you who don’t know, this a UK government body whose job should be obvious to you. Rather like London’s sewage system, they spend their time pumping shit around. They also make pious announcements about how Britain will single handedly rescue the world from imminent climate catastrophe or something along that line.

Their latest outpouring is a missive that now resides on Ed Millipede’s desk regarding the dietary requirements of the people of this country. It would appear that the musings of the climate change committee suggest that the populace should be “persuaded” to cut their meat intake by at least fifty percent by some point around 2030 or thereabouts. I can see the “nudge” committee rubbing their hands together in glee right now because they probably know that Eddy boy will be only too pleased to unleash his religious zealotry onto the public once more. It does however remain to be seen exactly how Mr Milliwatt will respond, but I suppose we can guess.

Quite why this is thought to be a good idea is something to consider. It would appear that cattle raising produces methane according to these (so called) wise ones. This is threatening to add to the “climate catastrophe” in some undefined manner. Rest assured however that the effects are (apparently) going to be dire. I think there was some mention of tipping points so it must be pretty serious. What we are talking about here, (not to put too fine a point on it) is cow farts. Ruminant wind is apparently now an imminent and dire threat to humanity.

Wind eh? First it was increased hurricanes due to climate change, then it was larger typhoons that would produce, ahem, worse wind. These two dire threats don’t seem to have materialised, so now the disaster mongers have turned their attention to our food. Cows do indeed produce methane as a result of their digestive systems functioning. So too do people, as does rotting vegetable matter.

Methane, we are told, is a far worse greenhouse gas than CO2. This may very well be true. On the balancing side, CO2 as we have discovered is 0.04% of the Earth’s atmosphere, or 420 parts per million. Methane (CH4), is concentrated at two parts per million. If you research this, you will see that CH4 concentration tends to be shown in parts per billon because that looks like a much higher number, (1,922 ppb) and consequently this measurement is used more often as it seems to get people much more panicky. We are told that the level is rising rapidly when in fact it rose between May 2021 and April 2022 by 0.9%, (according to NOAA). To say that these numbers are microscopic, would be to understate the matter to a colossal degree. To avoid all doubt, I should say that CO2 and CH4 are both “greenhouse gases” but that is all one can say with any certainty.

It turns out that 37% (an approximation of the total) of the methane emissions are from ruminants. In relation to the overall PPM number, (that is to say 2ppm), we are talking about 0.74ppm. So let us elaborate in percentage terms: a change in 0.00008% of the atmosphere is going to cause a drastic and catastrophic tipping point.

As I have said before- do me a favour.

The question is, how is this supposed change in climate to be measured? If we all start eating soya, or weeds, or bugs, or (god forbid) homities, how will we all know that the climate has altered in a (let us call it) positive way? The answer would appear to be that it will be very difficult to measure any change at all. In that case, I call this out for what it is- if you can’t measure it, then the imminent threat of dire consequence is bull-shirt.

Human beings are omnivores. They have for a long time (at least since the 1970s) subsisted on a diet of vegetable matter and meat. Protein is a most important part of the dietary day. It gives energy and and allows the building of muscle. I know vegetarial types very well and they all tend to say the same thing- “I don’t get enough protein.” They eat nuts and tofu, (try to imagine a pencil eraser on your plate), in order to supplement their meagre protein intake, but still complain of weariness. There are other dietary alternatives to meat and if you want to eat them instead of meat, do please go right ahead. However don’t try and tell me that I should also change because of some upcoming climate catastrophe. Quite honestly, it’s not believable. Also, I am old and getting tired, so I need all the energy I can get.

When governments like the one we have here in the UK say “persuade” I am coming to the conclusion that they mean “compel.” They claim that persuading people to eat less meat will help mitigate climate change, but offer no evidence to back this assertion up. As I have mentioned before, the elites in this country seem to have the idea fixed in their heads that the people that live here are stupid. This doesn’t make a lot of sense- either they are stupid in which case they demonstrate this by making poor decisions about everything, or they are not. If the people are stupid, then the party in government has been chosen in error and should at once resign asking the electorate to decide on a governing party once again.

I should point out here that it appears that only around 20% of the electorate in the UK voted to place the communists in power. Did I say “communists” there? I meant “labour party.” I hope that you will forgive the understandable error, it’s just that there doesn’t seem to much difference between the two right now.

Anyway, back to those johnnies at the climate change committee. Why on earth would we listen to a bunch of lank haired, kaftan wearing, pot smoking hippies with bad breath and vegetarian shoes? I particularly ask this question when their initial pre-supposition in this case is that we are living through a “climate emergency”?

This is the problem as I see it. The ‘a priori’ position is that there is an imminent danger from the gentle altering of the earth’s climate and the claim is implicit that it is solely caused by human activity. Whatever the underlying nature of the discussion, all of the protagonists always seem to tacitly agree to the starting point- that there is an emergency to deal with. There is not. There seems almost no evidence to support the claim of an emergency, just a set of individual claims that require to be unpicked a little. Allow me to illustrate with just one example.

Take: “the temperature has risen since 1850.” Yes, it has, but this doesn’t mean that there is some sort of emergency. In point of fact, I don’t regard a 1.2 degree C rise in temperature since 1850 as anything other than entirely unremarkable. Quite apart from that, the 1850 starting point is completely arbitrary date and appears only to be used as it supports the “emergency” narrative provided one doesn't dig into the thing too deeply.

To clothe the bare bones of my previous statement let me add that it was cooler on average than it is presently from around 1940 to about 1975. In 1962, there was snow on the ground in the UK from December 1962 until March 1963. It was warmer on average than today in the 1930s. What we can see is that whilst the CO2 level has steadily risen since the Industrial Revolution, the temperature has varied up and down from the overall average in that period. If the assertion that CO2, (and CH4) emissions exclusively drive temperature rise is the case, one might expect a constant one way temperature increase. The fact we are presented with variation would seem to indicate that there is another factor at play. What that factor (there could be more than one factor of course) might be is not clear, but what is clear is that the “Man made CO2 emissions drive temperature increase” position is called into question.

It seems to me that the climate system is complex. Many factors bear on changes and to assert that one factor trumps all the rest is simplistic in the extreme. The man made CO2 solo argument ignores factors like grand solar minima and maxima, the movement of the planets, the changes to axial tilt of the planet (known as “Milankovitch” cycles) and numerous other factors. When one ignores other factors, one massively increases the chances of poor decision making.

The constant revolving door of panic from hollow vessels like the climate change committee and Mr Millivolt must be constantly examined and challenged. There is no science to support the ludicrous assertion that meat eaters will destroy the planet and this is borne out by the vagueness of the statements made by those who support this ridiculous premise. The delusional people in the CCC should consider alternative careers- perhaps running a lollipop road crossing? My conclusion from this is that you may continue to eat meat if you want to. If it’s a part of your diet and if you like it, carry on. Once again, you will live to old age, as will your children and their children too.

At this stage, I will ruthlessly plagiarise something I heard a short while ago. It was uttered in response to the CCC exhortation to eat 50% less meat. It goes like this:

“The CCC can all burger off; it’s a load of bullocks”