Why Hide Such an Easy Solution?

Thursday, August 04, 2016

The latest of many examples of the contempt felt by climate alarmists for the minds of everyone else comes from the United Nations, whose International Research Panel has just recommended taxing meat at the wholesale level to deter consumption:

"I think it is extremely urgent," said Professor Maarten Hajer of Utrecht University in the Netherlands, lead author of the report. "All of the harmful effects on the environment and on health needs to be priced into food products."

Rather than taxing the meat at the retail level (in supermarkets and shops), Hajer recommended taxing it at the wholesale level. "We think it's better to price meats earlier in the chain, it's easier," said Hajer.
Easier? Than what, and for whom? If there were a strong case for catastrophic climate change that could so easily be averted, it would appear to me to be easier to lay it out for the public to draw its own conclusions, along with the suggestion that abstaining from meat could avert the disaster. It was likewise that the political institution of slavery, which looked like it could never be abolished, disappeared within a few decades of people making arguments against it to others, and without all the advantages of mass communication we have today.

Something must be missing, and it would appear, from my reading so far of Alex Epstein's The Moral Case for Fossil Fuels, to be solid evidence and a proper perspective on the problem: The same "experts" have, like leaders of a doomsday cult, been predicting imminent disaster for decades and demanding the government force people to live according to their predictions. At the same time, these "activists" have regarded nature as intrinsically good, leaving unasked the question of whether the alleged causes of the alleged disaster might offer benefits to man, which they do.

It is telling that climate alarmists would feel the need to be sneaky about helping us preserve the planet on which we live. It is as if there is nothing in it for us.

-- CAV


Anonymous said...

Hi Gus,

It would probably help if their Hollywood surrogates could do math...


My comment following on Amis' arbitrary assertion that one pound of meat equals the destruction of one acre of rainforest.

"About a pound of meat equals one acre of the rainforest."

Geez, can these Hollywood celebs even do math?

In 2012 the American Meat Industry produced 91 Billion pounds of meat.

According to the Nature Conservancy, there are 75 million acres of rainforest in the world.

There are only 36,794,240,000 acres of land in the entire world.

So, 7 hours 13 minutes into 2012, we American meat eaters had completely destroyed the remaining rainforests. [91,000,000,000 (91 Billion) divided by 365 days per year yields 249,315,068 (249 million) pounds of meat per day. 75,000,000 (75 million) goes into that daily number 3.3242 times which yields the time numbers above.]

147 days, 13 hours and 57 minutes into 2012, we American meat eaters alone had deforested the entire planet which we proceeded to do an additional 1.5 times that year alone. [36,794,240,000 (36 Billion) divided by 91,000,000,000 (91 Billion) yields .404332 which, when multiplied by 365 days in the year give us 147.581292 (147 days, 13 hours, 57 minute, as above.)]

I'm showing my raw numbers here because I know that UK vs USA nomenclature for higher order numbers is different and this way you folks playing along at home can enjoy the confirmation of The Cameron Intelligence Deficit along with the rest of us.

Thank you for playing and, Good Day!

c andrew

Gus Van Horn said...


That was hilarious, or it would be if I could close the book covers and discover that this was all a satirical novel and not real life.

Thanks for finding that figure and showing what a thoughtful person might do upon encountering it.