“Cattle is very energy-consuming and energy-expensive,” Yang said. “And if you project forward on what we would need to do to reduce emissions, you would want to modify Americans’ diets over time.” He admitted it would be difficult for the government to dictate diets (well except for the Obamacare bill), so he suggested cattle producers “internalize the cost of emissions” to make meat more expensive. “So then, what that would naturally do, and some people are going to hate this, but it would probably make those products more expensive,” he explained. “And that is appropriate because there is a cost to producing food in that way. And so if you were to make it more expensive, then you would end up changing consumption patterns.”
Scientist Says Eating Human Flesh Will Save Planet From Climate Change. A Swedish scientist suggests that it may be necessary to turn to cannibalism and start eating human flesh to save the planet (giving new meaning to the expression bite me) And NO this story is not from The Onion.A conference about the food of the future called Gastro Summit being held in Stockholm Sweden featured a presentation by Magnus Söderlund claiming that we must get used to the idea of eating human flesh in the future, as a way of combating the effects of climate change.
In 2016, the Brazilian model Gisele Bündchen flew over the Amazon forest with the head of Greenpeace Brazil as part of a National Geographic series called “Years of Living Dangerously.” She is horrified by what comes next. Down below her are fragments of forest next to cattle ranches. “All these large geometric shapes carved into the landscape are because of cattle?” “Everything starts with logging roads,” Adario explains. “The road stays and cattle rancher comes and cuts the remaining trees.” “And the cattle is not even natural to the Amazon!” says Bündchen. “It is not even supposed to be here!” “No, definitely not,” confirms Adario. “Imagine the destruction of this beautiful forest to produce cattle,” he says. “When you eat a burger you realize your burger is coming from rainforest destruction.” Bündchen starts to cry. “It’s shocking isn’t it?” says Adario.
But is it, really? If it is, does that mean Bündchen cries even harder when she flies over France and Germany? After all, those two countries deforested their landscapes centuries ago and all that’s left are cattle ranches and farms with far fewer protected areas and far smaller fragments of forest than the ones Bündchen looked down upon in the Amazon. Germans produce four times more carbon emissions per capita, including by burning biomass, than do Brazilians, and yet they don’t hesitate to lecture Brazilians about the need to stop deforesting and stop the fires"
“So, I’m a senior at CSU Chico, said the student. “So, my question is, you seem adamant about climate change.”“Of course,” the student continued after Sanders assented. “So what ways would you take to practice what you preach if you were to become president? I know it’s stressful, and you have to travel a lot, and you have to use fossil fuels …
”“No, I’m not going to walk to California,” Sanders said to laughter from the audience. “Look, you know, I understand that. We do the best we can as an example, but I’m not going to sit here and tell you that we’re not going to use fossil fuels …”
Fox & Friends - Fox News Channel - Broadcast August 2, 2019
Morano: "The best is 'Prince Harry speaks barefoot at this event. Nothing conveys moral authority like speaking barefoot. I almost didn’t wear shoes today because I wanted to come across with greater moral authority and a connection to the earth."
Boris Johnson, Angela Merkel, Emmanuel Macron, and Narendra Modi will apparently gather in the Netherlands. There, along with Bill Gates, UN head Antonio Guterres, and personnel associated with the European Union, the World Bank, and the International Monetary Fund, they’ll attend a climate summit hosted by the Global Center on Adaptation. ...
We’re told this summit "will launch a comprehensive Adaptation Action Agenda to kick start a transformational decade."
Donna Laframboise: "The chutzpah is astonishing. The global economy is in tatters. Billions face an uncertain future. Health care workers are exhausted. Yet this Clique of Self-Important People™ is full speed ahead, determined to impose its climate vision on the rest of us."
In the last 500 years only some 80 mammals are recorded as having gone extinct. In his book, More From Less, Andrew McAfee, a board member of HumanProgress.org, discusses how relatively rare recorded extinctions are – with some 530 across all species in the last five centuries. More importantly, he notes, the rate of extinction “appear[s] to have slowed down in recent decades; for example, no marine creatures have been recorded as extinct in the last fifty years.”
Matt Ridley, another board member and frequent contributor to this site, argues that despite the human population doubling in the last half-century, “the extinction rate of wild species, especially in the most industrialized countries,” seems to have fallen rather than increased. While absence of evidence isn’t the same as evidence of absence, and there might be millions of unrecorded species in the world’s oceans and tropical forests, the most aggressive claims rest on shaky foundations.
CNN: Jon Aars, a senior researcher at the Norwegian Polar Institute: "Polar bears are optimistic animals," Aars says. "It seems that they are quite resistant, and they are doing quite well despite the fact that they've lost a lot of their habitat." Despite the odds, Svalbard's polar bear numbers do not appear to have decreased in the last 20 years, he says.
Hulme: "January 12021, a new World Meteorological Organisation (WMO) climatological standard normal came into effect. The ‘present-day’ climate will now formally be represented by the meteorological statistics of the period 1991-2020, replacing those from 1961-1990. National Meteorological Agencies in member states are instructed to issue new standard normals for observing stations and for associated climatological products. Climate will ‘change’, one might say, in an instant; today, the world’s climate has ‘suddenly’ become nearly 0.5°C warmer. It is somewhat equivalent to re-setting Universal Time or adjusting the exact definition of a metre." ...
"So, what is the significance of the move to a new 1991-2020 WMO normal in January 2021? On the one hand, it is a pragmatic move to redefine ‘present-day’ climate for operational applications to that of the most recent 30-year period. On the other hand, it puts into play a third climatic baseline. Already existing is the ‘pre-industrial’ climate of the late nineteenth century and the ‘historic’ climate’ of 1961-1990, the latter about 0.3°C warmer than the former. And now there is the new ‘present-day’ climate of 1991-2020, in turn about 0.5°C warmer than the ‘historic climate’ of 1961-1990." ...
"Combining a climatic tolerance of 2°C—or indeed 1.5°C—with a pre-industrial baseline yields a very different climate target than, say, using a 1986-2005 baseline, the period widely adopted by IPCC AR5 Working Group I as their analytical baseline. The choices of both baseline and tolerance are politically charged. They carry significant implications for historic liability for emissions (La Rovere et al., 2002), for policy design (Millar et al., 2017) and for possible reparations (Roberts & Huq, 2015)."