How Sustainable Development Is Destroying Ranchers

In 1973, the Trilateral Commission set out to create its “New International Economic Order”, aka Technocracy and Sustainable Development. This depend upon creating artificial shortages of everything in order to control consumption and production.

Thus, shortages in energy, water, food and land sprung up everywhere. These ‘screaming emergencies’ promoted fear in order to stampede citizens into loving the idea of cradle-to-cradle coddling and total management by others. ⁃ TN Editor

I’m not a cattleman and I’m not going to pretend I know everything you are facing. But I do know that the major weapon being used against your industry is the misnamed control devise called Sustainable Development. I know why and I know who the players are. I hope I can leave you today with some ideas on how to fight them.

To begin, let’s set the terms and make one thing very clear. The use of the word sustainable may sound like a comfortable term, not threatening. After all, you, your parents, and those before them have probably been successfully working the same land for decades. That’s true sustainability. But that is not what it means to those forces pushing that term today. Sustainable today means sustained control. Sustained power. And very soon – sustainable poverty for many.

Most people immediately equate Sustainable Development with environmental policy. Of course, concern for the environment is the justification most often used for its implementation. But, in fact land, and economic control are at the heart of Sustainable policy and, assuming it is simply good environmental stewardship proves to be a serious and dangerous mistake.

The term “Sustainable Development” was born on the pages of the 1987 United Nations World Commission on Environment and Development. It is basically the policy for the implementation of Agenda 21 which came along in 1992. The announced purpose of Agenda 21 was a “comprehensive blueprint for the reorganization of human society”.

Now to make this blue print effective they needed us to voluntarily give up our liberties. What could be such a powerful threat to get us all to do that? Well, how about the threat of Environmental Armageddon? It doesn’t matter how many rights you think you have if you don’t have a planet to stand on! Climate change is the tool of choice to scare us all into voluntarily surrendering our liberties to this BLUEPRINT to change human society. And that’s why they will not give up on this scam – no matter how much true science debunks it.

If you doubt that then let me share this quote from Christina Stewart, the former Canadian Minister of the Environment: “No matter if the science of global warming is all phony … climate change provides the greatest opportunity to bring about justice and equality in the world.” That “justice and equality” she speaks of is redistribution of wealth – which means socialism. Sustainable Development is not just a conservation policy to assure we are good stewards of the land: rather, it affects every corner of our lives.

The Sustainable ground troops are made up of hundreds of Non-governmental Organizations (NGOs), including the Nature Conservancy, Sierra Club, National Resources Defense Council, Greenpeace and the World Wildlife Fund. They, and hundreds more like them, helped to write Agenda 21.

How many of you have heard of the Wildlands Project? In the 1980s one of the most radical environmental organizations emerged – named Earth First! Its leader was Dave Foreman. Earth First! saw themselves as “Eco-Warriors” the Esprit de Corp of the radical environmental movement. Monkeywrenching was their tactic of choice. Sabotage. They destroyed mining equipment, blew up power transmission lines and spiked trees. That little bit of fun meant they drove a spike into a tree. When the timber company then cut the tree down and sent it to the mill, as the saw blades hit the spike they would explode. Timber production stopped! Victory for the Eco Warriors.

Forman had big plans. He said, “My three main goals would be to reduce human populations to about 100 million worldwide, destroy the industrial infrastructure and see wilderness, with its full compliment of species, returning throughout the world.” Do you see any room for you and your cattle in that vision?

Oh, but these were just the ravings of a radical lunatic – not to be taken seriously. Well…not so fast! You see, Foreman’s ideas became the basis for the UN’s Biodiversity Treaty. “Rewilding” became the term to lock away over 50% of all the land in every state – back to the way if was before Christopher Columbus came this way. No human activity. No roads. No homes. No industry. That became the basis for the whole Sustainable movement.

Foreman got specific about how he saw YOUR future. “Our vision is simple. We live for the day when Grizzlies in Chihuahua have an unbroken connection to Grizzlies in Alaska. When gray wolf populations are continuous from New Mexico to Greenland.”

One of Foreman’s fellow Earth First!ers said, “The native ecosystems and the collective needs of non-human species must take precedence over the needs and desires of humans.” You see, this “vision” became the driving force for the entire radical environmental movement. It was first expressed in the 1970s in the UN’s Habitat 1 Conference that said, “Land… cannot be treated as an ordinary asset, controlled by individuals and subject to the pressures and inefficiencies of the market. Private land ownership is also a principle instrument of accumulation and concentration of wealth, therefore contributes to social injustice.” That’s how you reorganize human society.

Thomas Lovejoy, a Clinton appointed Science Advisor to the Department of Interior said, “We will map the whole nation…determine development for the whole country and regulate it all.” That is Sustainable Development.

Why is the excuse of environmental protection their most diabolical weapon? Because the environment doesn’t obey political boundaries. Rivers run through many towns and states. Then we have the corridors of crops and wildlife patterns. So environmental protection becomes the perfect excuse to move national sovereignty out of the way and open the borders to the “natural migration” of people.

On the county level we then have a need for a coalition of multiple counties working together on “mutual” needs, thus reducing your power at the ballot box to elect the kind of local government you desire. Then there is the matter of that boundary around your house – your private property – that the community needs to control – just to protect the environment, of course.

It is essential that every American understands that these leading issues we face today are not just random concerns that accidentally find their way into the forefront of political debate. They are all interconnected to be policies of Sustainable Development and the restructuring of our way of life. Their selected tactic is to control the land, water, energy, and population of the Earth. To achieve these ends requires, among other things, the destruction of private property rights and elimination of every individual’s ability to make personal life-style choices, including personal diet. That’s why the American Beef Industry is such a tasty target.

Of course, no totalitarian-bound movement would ever put their purpose in such direct terms. That’s where the environmental protection excuse comes in. Instead, American cattle producers are simply assured that no one wants to harm your industry, just make it safer for the environment. The gun industry might recognize that such an assurance sounds a bit familiar. Same source, same tactics, same goals.

Enter Bill Clinton’s President’s Council on Sustainable Development, (which was created a year after Agenda 21 to assure it’s policy of Sustainable Development became the rule of law). The President’s Council included representatives of most federal agencies, many of the NGOs who helped write Agenda 21 at the UN level, and representatives of global corporations. The President’s Council laid out the “Principles of Sustainability” called “Our Vision of a Sustainable United States of America.”

To carry out these plans, the President’s Council created a task force called the Sustainable Agriculture Task Force. The purpose, according to the report – “The Sustainable Agriculture Task force is developing an integrated vision of sustainable Agriculture, focusing on sustainable production practices and systems. The Task force will recommend goals and actions in the areas of agriculture-related research and education, technology, and farming practices and system to the Council for National Action Strategy.” So the offered solution to “fix” the beef industry is “sustainable certification”. All the cattle growers have to do is follow a few simple rules and all will be fine, peaceful, and profitable.

Now, enter the World Wildlife Fund and the Global Roundtable for Sustainable Beef (GRSB). The task force led the way to its creation. In all of their “expert wisdom” based on this Taskforce, here are some of their reasons why they claim the beef industry is not sustainable.

  1. Deforestation – the claim is that farm animals require considerably more land than crops to produce food. The World Hunger Program calculated that if the land was used to grow grain and soy instead of cattle the land could provide a vegan diet to 6 billion people. Do you get that – a vegan diet!

Of course, as I’m sure you know, most grazing land in the U.S. cannot be used for growing food crops because the soil wouldn’t sustain crops. It’s also interesting to note that in Brazil, the WWF managed to force that government to lock away almost 50% of that nation’s land into unusable parks. Now they are working on that same goal in the American west.

  1. Fresh Water – they claim that the America diet requires 4,200 gallons of water per day, including animal drinking water, irrigation of crops, processing, washing, etc. Whereas a vegan diet only requires 300 gallons per day. Apparently they don’t plan to irrigate the land to grow wheat or to wash the vegetables.

The interesting thing about this detail is that the actual sustainable policies they are enforcing to fix this problem destroy the small family farms in favor of the very giant corporate factory farms they profess to oppose.

Food Productivity – say the Greens, food productivity of farmland is falling behind the population and the only option, besides cutting the population, is to cut back on meat consumption and convert grazing lands to food crops. However, the only places where such shortages may exist are in totalitarian societies where government is controlling food production and supplies – Just like the Green’s plan for sustainable beef.

  1. Global Warming – here we go! Say the Greens, global warming is driven by energy consumption and cows are energy guzzlers.

But there’s more to the story. Cow flatulence! A single dairy cow, they claim, produces an average of 75 kilos of methane annually. Meanwhile, environmentalists want to return the rangelands to historic species, including buffalo. And a buffalo, grazing on the same grass on the same lands, would emit about the same amount of methane. It’s a non-issue.

Not long ago many farmers were being harassed by government agents over pollution in streams running through their land. The government charged that the cattle were the cause and demanded they build a fence to keep the cattle from the stream. They demanded, they harassed, and they threatened. Then they found that the pollution wasn’t being caused by the cows, rather the source was feral hogs. Of course, an environmentalist, who has never worked a ranch or farm and rarely comes out of his New York high-rise, might not know that.

So, these are some of the reasons why it’s charged that beef is unsustainable and must be ruled, regulated and frankly, eliminated. These are charges brought by anti-beef vegans who want all beef consumption stopped. In cahoots, are environmentalists who seek to stop the private ownership and use of land under the excuse of environmental protection.

And the sad fact is, the National Cattlemen’s Beef Association (NCBA), the organization many have been trusting to represent your interests, has betrayed you by allowing itself to be used as the Judas Goat to lead the industry to sustainable slaughter.

To bring the cattle industry into line with this world view the National Cattlemen’s Beef Association has accepted the imposition of the Global Roundtable for Sustainable Beef, which is heavily influenced, if not controlled, by the World Wildlife Fund, one of the top three most powerful environmental organizations in the world and a leader of the United Nations Environmental Program (UNEP), which basically sets the rules for global environmental policy.

This is the same World Wildlife Fund that issued a report saying, “Meat consumption is devastating some of the world’s most valuable and vulnerable regions, due to the vast amount of land needed to produce animal feed.” The report went on to say that, to save the Earth, it was vital that we change human consumption habits away from meat. Again, the fact is, most land used for grazing isn’t capable of growing crops for food.

Regulations using these principles impose a political agenda that ignores the fact that smaller, independent cattle growers have proven to be the best stewards of their own land and that for decades have produced the highest grade of beef product in the world. Instead, to continue to produce you will be required to submit to a centralized control of regulations that will never end and will always increase in costs and needless waste of manpower.

To follow the sustainable rules and be officially certified, you, as a cattle grower, must agree to have much of the use of your land reduced to provide for wildlife habitat. There are strict controls over water use and grazing areas. This forces you to have smaller herds, making the process more expensive and economically unviable for the industry. In addition, there is a new layer of industry and government inspectors, creating a massive bureaucratic overreach, causing yet more costs for you.

The Roundtable rules are now enforced through the four packing companies that control the entire American beef market. Your ability to get your cattle to market is getting harder every day – unless you comply with rules that are simply designed to put you out of business. And yet, if you do comply, you will certainly go out of business.

Do you understand the game that is being played on you? You are not supposed to win – you are supposed to quietly comply and then die. You cannot reason with them. You cannot compromise with them. You follow their rules. They own the game.

So as the packers, Cargill, Tyson, JBS and National Beef, force their expensive, unnecessary, and unworkable sustainable certification on American cattlemen, they are systematically bringing in cheaper product from other countries that don’t necessarily adhere to strict, sanitary, safe production. As a result there is a noticeable rise in news reports of recalls of diseased chicken and beef in American grocery stores. They get away with this ruse because their first step was to remove the Country of Origin Labeling (COOL) from the packaging in stores so consumers have no idea where the product is coming from.

This, then, is the situation that is threatening the American beef industry. If one reads the documents and statements from the World Wildlife Fund, the United Nations Environment Program, and others involved, it is not hard to realize that the true goal is not to make beef better, but to ban it altogether. And believe it or not, the fact that some of the beef sold in stores is becoming lower grade and even diseased, works in the Sustainablist’s favor too – because the ultimate goal is to stop the consumption of beef. So fear is a valuable tool.

The question must then be asked, why is the National Cattlemen’s Beef Association allowing this to happen, and indeed, joining with the Sustainable Beef Roundtable to force these policies on its members? The answer is actually quite tragic. They have beaten you into submission with that word Sustainable. American ranchers, farmers and livestock growers have been targets of the environmental and animal rights movements for years.

You just want to be left alone to work your farms and herds like your forefathers have done for more than a century. But the pressure is growing day by day. So, many have come to believe that if you just go along – put the sustainable label on your product — then this pressure will stop. In short, it would be a pressure valve release.

I’m sorry to tell you that it is not a release. Compromising and trying to play ball with these zealots is not going to make it go away. You must understand that the goal is not about improving your industry or environmental protection. The tragic reality is this is a drive for the destruction of your industry. Remember, the UN calls this the reorganization of human society. You and your way of life are to be reorganized to fit their view of human existence.

The attack has now grown to major proportions with the Green New Deal. Beefeaters have no place in the sustainable paradise of city apartment dwellers who accept government controls to choose for them what they are permitted to eat.

R-CALF USA, the courageous group leading the fight to save you, has managed to slow the Sustainable capture of the industry. But the packers’ control is a major roadblock if you can’t reach the market. R-CALF has filed Abuse of Conduct suits to shed light on the anti-trust activities of the monopoly tactics of the packers. It’s a good and valuable start.

However, the beef industry cannot recover on its own. Your story must be told to the consumers. They must become outraged about the real reasons prices are soaring and quality is going down, as the danger to their own health is increasing. You must focus on how to get your message out to consumers that a force is loose in our country that is robbing them of the freedom of choice for their own dinner plate, perhaps even for their own health. You know these facts – but the average American doesn’t. Now how do you do that? You are in a crisis situation. That calls for drastic, creative measures.

You must get dramatic to get the attention of consumers. You must get the American people to understand the threat to the beef industry. I have a modest little suggestion as to how you can get the attention of the entire nation – and start a nation-wide discussion on your plight.

Here is my modest suggestion to help you get the public’s attention. Start a cattle drive right down the main street of cities across the country. Drive your cattle right to city hall or the state capital. As you pass through town people are going to be very startled and curious, to say the least. Take advantage of that by passing out leaflets that tell them why you are doing this.

Now that you have everyone’s attention, tell your story. Hold a news conference right there on the steps of city hall or the state capital. In that news conference, demand that “Country of Origin” labels be put on all beef products so you know where your food comes from.

Second, demand that the Department of Agriculture reject this sustainable myth and protect the American free market that has always provided superior products.

Third, expose the packers by name. Help the American consumer become your ally in every grocery and steak house in the nation. Demand American beef for Americans! So, if they see that cute little WWF panda on the label – they’ll drop it like a hot potato.

Above all, publicly call out the National Cattlemen’s Beef Association to get its collective head out of the sand and join you before the entire industry is destroyed. Expose the fact that the NCBA is working directly with your mortal enemy, the World Wildlife Fund, which believes that beef consumption must be stopped in order to save the earth.

At your news conferences ask this question of the NCBA: Why would the WWF be welcomed into any part of your industry? It means they can effectively destroy you from the inside. And that is exactly what they are doing.

Can you imagine the impact this would have if you had five cattle drives in five cities in one day? It would get international attention. The only way you can survive is to fight.

I know some of you may be thinking this idea of a cattle drive is over the top. Perhaps it will cause more trouble than it’s worth. Well, just a few weeks ago several thousand farmers in the Netherlands staged a protest over similar government restrictions on their industry by blocking the roads into The Hague. The resulting traffic jam brought nearly the entire country to a halt. And the people supported the framers. The national government immediately reacted and called an emergency meeting to discuss the situation. The point is you must do something dramatic to get the nation’s attention!

So-called sustainable policy is not a free market. It is a government-sanctioned monopoly that is little short of a criminal enterprise. This is a dark, evil force with a one-sided goal designed to put you out of business and control or destroy your industry.

If you intend to survive, you must all become modern day Paul Reveres. That means taking direct, creative action. The very future of our nation and its ability to feed itself, while remaining free and strong, depends on the choices you make today. As martyred rancher LaVoy Finicum said, it matters how you stand!

Read full story here…




Claim: Genetically Engineered Plants Fight Global Warming

Methane lasts in the atmosphere for about 12 years before it is completely broken down into other molecules. Half of it breaks down in just 7 years. Thus, no matter how many ‘cow farts’ are released today, 100% of the methane will be naturally gone in 12 years. ⁃ TN Editor
 

Methane in the atmosphere is a very potent greenhouse gas. Over a 20-year period, methane traps 84 times more heat per mass unit than carbon dioxide. There is a distinct possibility that large increases in future methane may lead to surface warming that increases nonlinearly with the methane concentration. The concentration of methane in the atmosphere has more than doubled, since the start of the Industrial Revolution, and approximately a fifth of the warming the planet has experienced can be attributed to the gas.

According to Wikipedia; Multiple independently produced instrumental datasets confirm that the 2009–2018 decade was 0.93°C warmer than the 1850–1900 baseline period. A reasonable linear first approximation would predict that halving total atmospheric methane will reduce global average temperatures by 0.186 °C.

The biggest natural source of methane natural emissions is wetlands. Bacteria that live under low oxygen conditions in waterlogged wetland soils produce methane. Approximately 30% of atmospheric methane comes from that source.

The arctic permafrost and methane ice clathrates under the oceans contain huge amounts of methane.

Climate scientists are worried that as global air temperatures rise it will cause methane ice to vaporize, increasing the release of heat-trapping methane into the air that will in turn cause more methane ice to vaporize and release even more methane in a feedback loop that results in out of control greenhouse warming. The endpoint of that process might be a Venus syndrome scenario that destroys all life on earth but it is more likely that a new equilibrium will come about where temperatures won’t exceed the hottest temperatures of the cretaceous era when dinosaurs lived in steaming hot swamps at the north pole and the equatorial regions were vast deserts. Of course, that type of climate will be disastrous for the human race since desertification will cut the food supply and make vast stretches of land too hot to live in.

Cows, pigs and other ruminants have methanogenic bacteria in their stomachs that produce methane in their burps and farts. The manure they excrete contains those same bacteria and goes on producing even more of the greenhouse gas. There are 1.4 billion cattle in the world, and billions of other methane producing ruminant animals. The United Nations report, “Livestock’s Long Shadow” claimed livestock are responsible for 18% of Green House Gas emissions. Total agricultural methane releases come to 188 million tons.

Rice paddies are another big source of methane. The flooded swamp-like conditions have low oxygen levels that methane-producing bacteria thrive in. Methane from rice contributes around 1.5 percent of total global greenhouse gas emissions. It is not necessary to grow rice in flooded fields and there is a movement to grow rice under dry conditions that drastically reduce methane but that also lowers rice yield.

As it becomes clear that the effects of global warming are causing more and more deaths and costly destruction of the world’s infrastructure, some environmentalists are proposing radical solutions like restricting cattle farming and the sale of meat. However, there is work on finding feed additives that reduce the amount of methane generated by bacteria in the stomachs of ruminants.

A number of compounds from seaweed were found to reduce the amounts of methane they emit, but the bacteria mutate and adapt to the seaweed compounds and they lose their effectiveness. There are seaweed compounds in tests now that might keep their effectiveness over time, but there are no guarantees that strategy will work. 

Read full story here…

 




Dutch protest

Dutch Farmers Launch Massive Tractor Brigade Against The Hague Over Green Fascism

Farmers in The Netherlands are fed up with so-called ‘Green Fascists’ dictating farming policy from The Hague, and have launched a massive protest that is bringing transportation to a standstill. 

Thousands of large tractors formed a tractorcade to storm The Hague, the capital of The Netherlands. 

According to Dutch News NL:

The demonstration has been prompted by a suggestion from coalition party D66 that Dutch livestock farming should be slashed to meet commitments on reducing nitrogren emissions. Farming organisations say their members are sick of being described by politicians, the media and activists as pollutors and animal abusers.

The Dutch people are supporting the farmers by a margin of 80%.

The green fascist movement wants to destroy factory farming, eradicate the beef and pork industries and basically run farmers out of business. How people would sustain themselves without a robust food change apparently a non-issue with them. 

This type of protest might well spread to neighboring nations as well. 

 

 

 




australia

‘C02 Is Plant Food’: Australian Group Signs Int’l Declaration Denying Global Warming

In typical climate-shaming manner, the Guardian first notes what this group did, they ridicules them for ‘denying climate science’, when in fact they are denying anthropogenic (man-caused) global warming.

Click to Download the Full List of 500 Signatories

TN Editor

 

A group of 75 Australian former and current business figures – including mining engineers and retired geologists – have signed on to an international declaration targeting the UN and the EU and claiming “there is no climate emergency” and that “CO2 is plant food”.

Several of the signatories to the group – which described itself as Clintel – have high-level links to conservative politics, industry and mining.

They include Hugh Morgan, a former president of the Business Council of Australia, and Ian Plimer, a director on Gina Rinehart’s Roy Hill Holdings iron ore project.

The move was designed to coincide with the UN’s climate action summit and general assembly in New York.

Also signing the declaration is Dr Peter Ridd, the former James Cook University scientist who claims that devastating bleaching events on the Great Barrier Reef are not driven by climate change.

Ridd was backed by Queensland’s beef and sugar cane industries to deliver a speaking tour in an attempt to undermine the science linking run-off from farms and poor water quality to coral declines. His views have helped force a Coalition-backed Senate inquiry into reef science.

The former chief scientist Ian Chubb compared Ridd’s efforts to the misinformation campaigns run by the tobacco industry on the impacts of cigarettes on public health.

The Clintel group describes itself as “a new, high-level global network of 500 prominent climate scientists and professionals” but it bears similarities to at least one previous network.

In an open letter addressed to the UN secretary general, António Guterres, and the UN’s chief climate negotiator, Patricia Espinosa Cantellano, the group describes the benefits of cutting greenhouse gas emissions as “imagined”.

One “ambassador” of the group is a Queensland-based coalmining veteran, Viv Forbes. Another is the well-known British peer Christopher Monckton, who once likened the leading Australian economist and climate adviser Prof Ross Garnaut to a Nazi.

The letter repeats well-worn and long-debunked talking points on climate change that are contradicted by scientific institutions and academies around the world, as well as the assessments of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change.

The letter says: “Scientists should openly address the uncertainties and exaggerations in their predictions of global warming, while politicians should dispassionately count the real benefits as well as the imagined costs of adaptation to global warming, and the real costs as well as the imagined benefits of mitigation.”

Read full story here…




Technocrat Feds Seeking Data On All Grocery Stores In America

Requirement #3 from the 1934 Technocracy Study Course states: “Provide a continuous inventory of all production and consumption.” Technocrats in 2019 are casting their dragnet. ⁃ TN Editor

The Agriculture Department wants access to comprehensive data across all America’s food retailers—with specific details down to the individual store level—to assess issues around the viability and availability of the nation’s nutritional resources and inform the agency’s future research efforts.

“In recent years, concerns about the availability of healthful, affordable foods by households in low-income neighborhoods has resulted in the need for detailed information on the kinds and locations of retail food stores in relation to such vulnerable populations,” agency officials said in a recently published sources sought solicitation. “More broadly, detailed store-level data and information are needed to assess the economic performance of the food retailing industry and its ability to serve the changing needs of consumers.”

For deliverables, the agency wants data and an all-inclusive list of supermarkets that span the country, including those that have annual total sales of $2 million or more, “suprettes” or stores that make between $1 and $2 million in annual sales, mass merchandisers, wholesale clubs, drug stores and convenient stores that are not associated with gas stations.

More specifically, for each defined location, Agriculture wants detailed information on a variety of elements including the stores’ names and addresses, geographic identifiers, annual sales, size of selling areas, information on the items that they sell and market area identifiers. The agency is also particularly interested in specific “entry and exit” insights on the new stores that are entering the market for the first time, as well as the stores that have shut their doors and closed for good. Changes of ownership are also of interest to Agriculture.

Vendors will also be expected to provide information on their data sources, collection procedures, estimation methods, data dictionary, data quality and limitations and other relevant components.

Agency insiders are especially interested in using the data to study how firm characteristics and entry and exit influence households’ shopping preferences.

“[Agriculture] will use the data for projects that support economic and policy research,” the solicitation also notes. “The research projects are often undertaken in collaboration with external experts, including but not limited to economists, researchers, and survey and data methodologists at non-governmental organizations.”

Read full story here…




keto

Climate Shaming: Keto Dieters Are Called ‘Irresponsible’ Stewards Of The Planet

Virtually every major publication in the world is promoting anti-meat rhetoric to ‘save the planet’ but now it’s getting really personal as Keto dieters are pointedly shamed as ‘irresponsible’ stewards of earth. ⁃ TN Editor

The world cannot run on bacon and butter.

Aside from the fact that there are not enough pigs and cows on the Earth to feed every person in such a high-fat way, this kind of meaty diet is dangerous for both human health and our planet’s future.

That doesn’t stop people from trying.

“Eating a keto diet that’s especially high in red meat will be undermining the sustainability of the climate,” Harvard nutrition professor Dr. Walter Willett told Business Insider. “It’s bad for the person eating it, but also really bad for our children and our grandchildren, so that’s something I think we should totally, strongly advise against. It’s — in fact — irresponsible.”

Keto diets run on all different kinds of fat

Trendy keto diets are designed to make people run on fat, strictly limiting a person’s carbohydrates,so that the body switches into a fat-burning state called “ketosis.” In practice, this usually means no sugar, no wheat, no beans, and very little alcohol. Sometimes, it also means a lot of red meat.

But there isn’t a lot of evidence about whether fueling up on more saturated fats — bacon, butter, and cream are traditionally linked to health conditions like heart disease and higher cholesterol— might harm the long-term health of keto dieters. (That hasn’t stopped the keto diet market from exploding: annual keto-friendly food sales are projected to skyrocket to a $12.35 billion market worldwide by 2024, and butter sales, especially of fancy versions like those from grass-fed cows, are on the rise too.)

Willett says he thinks people can be healthy on a keto diet, and that one of the best ways to go high fat may be to model the Greeks.

“It’s pretty easy when you’re in some place like Israel or Greece with so many good vegetables and healthy oils and fish to have a pretty healthy low carbohydrate diet,” he said.

Beef consumption isn’t good for the Earth

Both keto aficionados and Willett agree: there’s something wrong with the way most people are eating. We could all stand to replace refined carbohydrates like white bread, snack cakes, and sugary drinks with more good fats and fresh produce.

But replacing carbs with more saturated fats doesn’t always align with a planet-friendly way of eating.

Unlike olive oil, many fat sources that are solid at room temperature, like bacon fat, butter, and beef tallow, come from animals, not plants. To cultivate those fat sources, farmers need a fair amount of real estate for cows and pigs to roam.

A United Nations report released just last week suggests the world’s beef-heavy consumption patterns are taking a serious toll on the health of our planet: food systems are now responsible for 37% of greenhouse gas emissions, and cow manure is a major part of that equation, as it releases large amounts of climate-changing nitrous oxide and methane into the air.

“Diets that are rich in plant-based food emit lower greenhouse-gas emissions than diets that are very heavy in red meat consumption,” UN report co-author Cynthia Rosenzweig said during a press conference.

There are things eaters can do to change that. A report Willett himself authored for the EAT Lancet commission earlier this year suggested that people around the globe should double their intake of “fruits, vegetables, nuts and legumes ” while cutting red meat and sugar intake by at least 50% in order for the globe to remain healthy and well-fed.

Read full story here…




drone

FAA Approves Food Delivery Drones In North Carolina

Technocrats who would gladly replace human delivery drivers with drones are populating the skies with noisy and intrusive drones. Convenience aside, people will consider them a massive nuisance.  ⁃ TN Editor

The Federal Aviation Administration (FAA) has granted Israeli drone maker Flytrex and North Carolina-based drone services firm Causey Aviation Unmanned approval for a drone-based food delivery pilot, according to a press release emailed to Supply Chain Dive.

The team will deliver food via drone in Holly Springs, NC, as part of the FAA’s UAS Integration Pilot Program (IPP) program in partnership with the North Carolina Department of Transportation (NCDOT) and the Town of Holly Springs.

The drones will travel along a single fixed route from a distribution center to an outdoor recreational area over mostly unpopulated areas, though the route does cross a highway. The FAA approved this route. Flytrex drones have been delivering food in Iceland in partnership with a local e-commerce site since 2017.

With this plan, drones are beginning to show similarities to other introductions of autonomous vehicles into supply chains. Repeated fixed routes, or “milk runs,” are quickly becoming a hallmark of early autonomous vehicle applications. Walmart, for one, is moving groceries between a Walmart grocery pickup location and a Walmart Neighborhood Market, in Bentonville, AR, via autonomous van.

Fixed routes substantially decrease the variables the vehicle may encounter, and in the case of the North Carolina flight plan, minimizes the number of people the drone will fly over. Another player looking to deliver food via drone is Uber Eats.

Read full story here…




University Of London Bans Burgers To Help Save The Planet

A clever movie plot is coming to life when the lunatic inmates take over the insane asylum, while throwing the legitimate staff into the padded cells. ‘Carbon-shaming’ is the new meme, and is patently anti-human and anti-civilization.

Why? Because carbon is absolutely essential to human life on earth.

 ⁃ TN Editor

Beef burgers have been banned by a university as part of efforts to tackle the climate emergency.

Goldsmiths, University of London said it is to remove all beef products from sale from next month as the institution attempts to become carbon neutral by 2025.

Students will also face a 10p levy on bottles of water and single-use plastic cups when the academic year starts to discourage use of the products.

The college’s new Warden, Professor Frances Corner, said staff and students “care passionately about the future of our environment” and that “declaring a climate emergency cannot be empty words”.

The move has been backed by Goldsmiths Students’ Union, with president Joe Leam saying that the university has a “huge carbon footprint” and that the promise to eradicate this in the next few years is needed.

As well as the beef ban and 10p levy on single-use water bottles and plastic cups, there are plans to install more solar panels across the college’s New Cross campus in south-east London and switch to a 100% clean energy supplier as soon as possible.

Officials said Goldsmiths will also continue to invest in its allotment area and identify other places where planting could help to absorb carbon dioxide, and will review how all students can access modules which cover climate change and the role of both individuals and organisations in reducing carbon emissions.

Prof Corner said: “The growing global call for organisations to take seriously their responsibilities for halting climate change is impossible to ignore.

“Though I have only just arrived at Goldsmiths, it is immediately obvious that our staff and students care passionately about the future of our environment and that they are determined to help deliver the step change we need to cut our carbon footprint drastically and as quickly as possible.

“Declaring a climate emergency cannot be empty words. I truly believe we face a defining moment in global history and Goldsmiths now stands shoulder to shoulder with other organisations willing to call the alarm and take urgent action to cut carbon use.”

Figures show that Goldsmiths emits around 3.7 million kg of carbon emissions each year, the college said.

Referring to the statistic in a blog, Mr Leam said: “It is clear our university has a huge carbon footprint. The promise to have ended this by 2030 at the latest, with the hope of doing so by 2025, is one which is needed.

“Whilst this plan/action is only the beginning, and much work is yet to be done, it is fantastic to see Goldsmiths taking responsibility and responding to its impact on the climate.”

Read full story here…




UN: Change Land Use To Avoid A Hungry Future

If global warming isn’t personal enough to scare you to death, the UN trots out the rabid notion that you are going to starve to death as a result of it. Coupled with rising sea levels and shortages of drinking water, mankind has no future unless… it adopts Sustainable Development. ⁃ TN Editor

Human-caused climate change is dramatically degrading the Earth’s land and the way people use the land is making global warming worse, a new United Nations scientific report says. That creates a vicious cycle which is already making food more expensive, scarcer and less nutritious.

“The cycle is accelerating,” said NASA climate scientist Cynthia Rosenzweig, a co-author of the report. “The threat of climate change affecting people’s food on their dinner table is increasing.”

But if people change the way they eat, grow food and manage forests, it could help save the planet from a far warmer future, scientists said.

Earth’s land masses, which are only 30% of the globe, are warming twice as fast as the planet as a whole. While heat-trapping gases are causing problems in the atmosphere, the land has been less talked about as part of climate change. A special report, written by more than 100 scientists and unanimously approved by diplomats from nations around the world Thursday at a meeting in Geneva, proposed possible fixes and made more dire warnings.

“The way we use land is both part of the problem and also part of the solution,” said Valerie Masson-Delmotte, a French climate scientist who co-chairs one of the panel’s working groups. “Sustainable land management can help secure a future that is comfortable.”

Scientists at Thursday’s press conference emphasized both the seriousness of the problem and the need to make societal changes soon.

“We don’t want a message of despair,” said science panel official Jim Skea, a professor at Imperial College London. “We want to get across the message that every action makes a difference.”

Still the stark message hit home hard for some of the authors.

“I’ve lost a lot of sleep about what the science is saying. As a person, it’s pretty scary,” Koko Warner, a manager in the U.N. Climate Change secretariat who helped write a report chapter on risk management and decision-making, told The Associated Press after the report was presented at the World Meteorological Organization headquarters in Geneva. “We need to act urgently.”

The report said climate change already has worsened land degradation, caused deserts to grow, permafrost to thaw and made forests more vulnerable to drought, fire, pests and disease. That’s happened even as much of the globe has gotten greener because of extra carbon dioxide in the air. Climate change has also added to the forces that have reduced the number of species on Earth.

“Climate change is really slamming the land,” said World Resources Institute researcher Kelly Levin, who wasn’t part of the study.

And the future could be worse.

“The stability of food supply is projected to decrease as the magnitude and frequency of extreme weather events that disrupt food chains increases,” the report said.

In the worst-case scenario, food security problems change from moderate to high risk with just a few more tenths of a degree of warming from now. They go from high to “very high” risk with just another 1.8 degrees Fahrenheit (1 degree Celsius) of warming from now.

“The potential risk of multi-breadbasket failure is increasing,” NASA’s Rosenzweig said. “Just to give examples, the crop yields were effected in Europe just in the last two weeks.”

Scientists had long thought one of the few benefits of higher levels of carbon dioxide, the major heat-trapping gas, was that it made plants grow more and the world greener, Rosenzweig said. But numerous studies show that the high levels of carbon dioxide reduce protein and nutrients in many crops.

For example, high levels of carbon in the air in experiments show wheat has 6% to 13% less protein, 4% to 7% less zinc and 5% to 8% less iron, she said.

But better farming practices — such as no-till agricultural and better targeted fertilizer applications — have the potential to fight global warming too, reducing carbon pollution up to 18% of current emissions levels by 2050, the report said.

If people change their diets, reducing red meat and increasing plant-based foods, such as fruits, vegetables and seeds, the world can save as much as another 15% of current emissions by mid-century. It would also make people more healthy, Rosenzweig said.

The science panel said they aren’t telling people what to eat because that’s a personal choice.

Read full story here…




World Resources Institute: Go Vegetarian To Combat Climate Change

The logical absurdity that a vegetarian diet will to anything to affect earth’s climate is deeply embedded into the radical green movement, which exclusively promotes the UN’s Sustainable Development, aka Technocracy. Note that the study referenced is sponsored by the World Bank! ⁃

Unfortunately, the writer of this story suggests that inventing genetically modified food (GMO) is the future of feeding the world. – TN Editor

The World Resources Institute (WRI), which is supported in part by the U.N., is encouraging humans to give up eating meat. Doing so, they believe, will not only help with food supplies but will also combat climate change. Become a vegetarian or watch the world starve to death and burn is the messaging, I guess.

Writing in their report, the WRI project claims:

Consumption of animal-based foods to rise 68 percent between 2010 and 2050, with an 88 percent increase in consumption of ruminant meat (meat from cattle, sheep, and goats). These trends are a major driver of the food, land, and GHG mitigation gaps. For every food calorie generated, animal-based foods—and ruminant meats in particular—require many times more feed and land inputs, and emit far more greenhouse gases, than plant-based food.

After the begrudging acknowledgment that meat does provide some needed nutrients to people in developing countries, the WRI adds that the increase in meat consumption around the world “is both unnecessary and unhealthy.” Playing the spoilsport, WRI felt the need to then insert that science ” has now identified processed meats as carcinogenic and red meat as probably carcinogenic.”

We get it, leftists, things that humans enjoy are bad and should be taken away from us. Who cares that quinoa tastes like dirt, no matter what you do to it? Massive amounts of red meat might be carcinogenic and forests have to be cut down to accommodate the cows. We should stop eating delicious meat and eat more tasteless quinoa and kale instead.

Well, no thank you. I was once a vegetarian and I ain’t going back. I’m much smarter now than when I was a member of PETA.

I also grew up in the Florida Panhandle surrounded by tree farms, so I don’t buy the “we’re running out of trees” scare tactic. Acres and acres filled with rows upon rows of pine trees blanket the area. As a fun way to combat any leftist tendencies they may have, I love pointing out those tree farms to my kids whenever we visit my dad. I then ask, “So, kids, what do you say whenever your teachers complain about deforestation?” The correct reply, that they’ve learned by looking out of the windows of our car, is, “Trees are a renewable source of energy.”

Of course, raising more cattle to feed this world’s growing mouths will require some deforestation. So, what? There are more trees in this country than when the Pilgrims landed. There are also way more fields containing cattle, too. Lots of deforestation has happened as has even more reforestation. I understand that land is ultimately a limited resource, but we are far from coming close to that limit. Protecting virgin forests is all fine and dandy until it begins to threaten humanity’s ability to flourish. Cut trees down when and where needed, and plant and cultivate trees when and where needed.

Another way to help ensure that everyone has enough food is to put an end to the irrational attack on GMO food. The Green Revolution started by American scientist Norman Borlaug has been attributed with preventing billions of people from starving to death. Imagine how many future people could be fed if we’d stop demonizing big businesses that have the resources and incentives to develop more and better GMO crops.

Read full story here…