UN claims plant-based diet ‘can fight climate change’ 

Posted: August 8, 2019 by oldbrew in climate, Emissions, IPCC, propaganda
Tags: , ,

Photosynthesis: nature requires carbon dioxide

More of the usual propaganda about ‘human-induced climate change’. Not mentioned is the fact that most of their so-called ‘greenhouse gas’ is water vapour, which has little or nothing to do with human activities, and much of the carbon dioxide has always been due to natural factors.

A major report says the West’s high consumption of meat is fuelling global warming, reports the BBC.

But scientists and officials stopped short of explicitly calling on everyone to become vegan or vegetarian.

They said that more people could be fed using less land if individuals cut down on eating meat.

The document, prepared by 107 scientists for the UN’s Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC), says that if land is used more effectively, it can store more of the carbon emitted by humans.

It was finalised following discussions held here in Geneva, Switzerland.

“We’re not telling people to stop eating meat. In some places people have no other choice. But it’s obvious that in the West we’re eating far too much,” said Prof Pete Smith, an environmental scientist from Aberdeen University, UK.

The report calls for vigorous action to halt soil damage and desertification – both of which contribute to climate change.

It also warns that plans by some governments to grow trees and burn them to generate electricity will compete with food production unless carried out on a limited scale.

The Earth’s land surface, and the way it is used, forms the basis for human society and the global economy.

But we are re-shaping it in dramatic ways, including through the release of greenhouse gases into the atmosphere. How the land responds to human-induced climate change is a vital concern for the future.

Continued here.

  1. Phoenix44 says:

    Yet again, absurd propaganda that entirely misses the point about why we have an economy. I like eating meat and my ability to do so makes m wealthier. Why would I stop doing what I want and make myself poorer? There has to be some incentive, some reason to make myself poorer.

    Yet nothing is offered other than this is a sacrifice to prevent some possible future that may not happen.

  2. stpaulchuck says:

    I’m not sure how that’s supposed to help. Every time I eat bean burritos and wash it down with beer, all plant products, I generate significant amounts of methane as evidenced by vociferous complaints by She Who Must Be Obeyed.

  3. tom0mason says:

    Again more dumb-ar$ed propaganda from the UN.
    NO! NO! NO!
    While we are free to make choices we will make them. We’ll make them based on our personal preferences, needs, and abilities to pay. The poorer areas of the world have less of an affordable choice to make — limiting my choices will NOT improve theirs.
    The UN is making it clear that they wish to micro-manage (and tax) all western nation’s populations. No one voted them, they have NO mandate over us, they should be told to butt out of this idiot idea.
    Look out for the UN next trying to §uçĸ the food markets/supply chain to get their way.

    Analysis of the last UN-IPCC meeting in Katowice, Poland was shown to very meat heavy…

    I look forward to the UN leading the way with all UN banquets, conference meals, kitchens, cafe, and canteens having zero meat policy. It will never happen from these pompous bunch of hypocrites.

  4. My experience of growing vegetables compared to my neighbouring farmer’s experience of rearing sheep and cows is that growing vegetables requires a lot of added water which means I am emitting more “greenhouse gas” in the form of water vapour than he is. According to Harrabin, my neighbour’s cows emit a lot of carbon, but I have never seen any carbon coming off them.

  5. cognog2 says:

    Without the meat to produce the CO2 the plants will struggle to survive.

  6. oldbrew says:

    Medieval warm period

    In 1965 British climatologist Hubert Horace Lamb examined historical records of harvests and precipitation, along with early ice-core and tree-ring data, and concluded that the MWP was probably 1–2 °C (1.8–3.6 °F) warmer than early 20th-century conditions in Europe.


    The world had no problem with that – which lasted on and off for a few centuries – AND it was natural warming, specific cause unknown but try the Sun as the prime suspect. Today’s doomsters would have been shouting ’10 years to save the world’ or some such tripe.

  7. Graeme No.3 says:

    How early in the 20th-century? Up to 1910 (or thereabouts) it was cooler. By 1922 (from the celebrated USA Consul’s report) the Arctic was warm. By the 1920’s Iceland’s annual average temperature had climbed from 1℃ to 4.5℃ .
    In 1925 they restarted growing barley in Iceland after a ‘hiatus’ of 400 years. They couldn’t grow wheat as reported was the case in the MWP**, but have started to grow a cold resisting selection in the last 10 years in favourable spots and with copious seaweed mulching. (plant late summer and harvest 12 months later).

    As far as I know the Sagas of the MWP don’t record grumbling about the weather.

    **They undoubtedly grew wheat at Trondheim on the same latitude in the MWP.

  8. oldbrew says:

    The early medieval warm epoch and its sequel

    Changes of prevailing temperature and rainfall in England between periods of 50–150 years duration around 1200 and around 1600 are found which, on all the evidence at present available, probably amounted to 1.2–1.4°C and 10% respectively.

    Copyright © 1965 Published by Elsevier B.V.
    – – –

    Persistent Positive North Atlantic Oscillation Mode Dominated the Medieval Climate Anomaly

    Valérie Trouet1,*, Jan Esper1,2, Nicholas E. Graham3,4, Andy Baker5, James D. Scourse6, David C. Frank1
    Science 03 Apr 2009:

    The Medieval Climate Anomaly (MCA) was the most recent pre-industrial era warm interval of European climate, yet its driving mechanisms remain uncertain. We present here a 947-year-long multidecadal North Atlantic Oscillation (NAO) reconstruction and find a persistent positive NAO during the MCA.


  9. E.M.Smith says:

    Oddly, I’ve been looking into health implications of various diets lately. The conclusion (from various M.D. and PhD folks)? Eat meat, ditch the sugar entirely, and cut way back on the plant sourced carbs…


    An interesting video that looks at ancient diets and finds meat eaters are healthy and ancient agrarian diets high in carbs and plants, had “modern” diseases of heart disease, diabetes, arthritis, etc. 55 minutes:



    A rather fascinating video about how the all meat diet can work, despite being low on a few vitamins and minerals and very short on fiber.

    Short from is that plants have a lot of ‘anti-nutrients’ in them and some of them chelate minerals and make them unavailable. Stop eating plants, your demand in the diet drops as you use it more efficiently. Another was that Vit C (ascorbic acid) is in competition with sugar for binding sites. Cut out the sugar, the competition goes away and your Vit C requirement drops.

    This matters rather quite a lot as it is low Vit C levels that sit at the bottom of arterial diseases (heart attack, stroke, atherosclerosis, etc.) Humans make a “patching compound” protein that patches up leaking vessels during times of low Vit C. If you don’t ever have a time of normal to high Vit C, the patching continues until you have clogged arteries. For a big male that’s about 2 GRAMS of Vit-C needed per day. Now what happens to that when you have a high sugar diet? It has competition and doesn’t work as well. What happens in a low sugar diet? You don’t need as much…

    The other big surprise is the study on fiber, constipation, and diet types. There’s a chart in the video. Adding fiber to the diet increased constipation. Folks on a low fiber diet had fewer issues. There were zero cases of constipation in the part of the study group on an all meat diet. So actually testing the High Fiber Fixes Constipation diet theory shows it exactly wrong. This is starting to be a pattern…

    If “advice” comes from the UN, it is a fair bet that it is designed to make you sick, compliant, or kill you. Just say NO! to UN “advice”.

  10. Chaswarnertoo says:

    Soylent green time. How about limiting population, especially in poor countries that are outbreeding available resources? Cue the reeeeeeeee.

  11. oldbrew says:

  12. Gamecock says:

    ‘The document, prepared by 107 scientists for the IPCC.’

    Because 106 wasn’t enough.

  13. oldbrew says:

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out /  Change )

Google photo

You are commenting using your Google account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s