Oh, wait, you where thinking these were rules for the people who believe in the climate crisis scam? Silly you. It’s rarely ever about themselves, it’s always about Other People. And government force on people and private entities
The 2 Rules for Eating to Fight Climate Change
Quit wasting food and eat less meat.
What’s for dinner?
On a planet wracked by rising seas, expanding deserts, withering biodiversity, and hotter temperatures, that’s a fraught question to answer. Food production accounts for roughly a quarter of the world’s greenhouse-gas emissions, and scientists have found that limiting global warming will be impossible without significant changes to how the world eats. At the same time, climate change is threatening the world’s food supply, with land and water being exploited at an “unprecedented†pace.
Reforming the food system to save the planet is going to require new corporate practices, and new laws and regulations at the national and international levels. But individual consumer behaviors matter, as well—more than you might think. Your diet is likely one of your biggest sources of climate emissions. But what should you do? Eat locally? Get your food from small-scale farmers? Choose organics and fair trade? Avoid processed foods? Eat seasonally?
The choices are many; the stakes are high. But experts on land use, climate change, and sustainable agriculture told me that two habits tower above all others in terms of environmental impact. To help save the planet, quit wasting food and eat less meat.
Look, reducing food waste is a good idea. That shouldn’t have to be controversial, but, the climate cult nuts have made yet another wise idea into part of their cult, and, let’s face it, the disciples of the Cult of Climastrology are pretty much just as culpable for this as Skeptics. I bought too much uncooked chicken the other day, didn’t need that much, but, it was the smallest amount I could buy. So, I’m throwing about half a pound out, because you can only refrigerate it for a few days. I know I’ll never get too it if I freeze it. But, it’s not up to Government to dictate my food habits.
And certainly not require me and you and everyone else (Warmists think this won’t affect themselves, of course, because they’re idiot cultists) to eat less meat. Because that’s really want the CoC want Government force. Because most people are not going to give up their own eating of meat. It’s always about governmental force.
Cook the chicken then freeze it
So you want to take a product that when delivered is chilled or frozen, cook it, and then refreeze it?
Aren’t you wasting a lot of energy by cooking something that will go back to being frozen?
You are advocating a solution that is more energy intensive thus increasing CO2. Why are you telling people that they should harm the planet or is it that you don’t really believe in AGW?
Once again, we see how the left hates logic and science, but then again, all the left has is hate.
Once again, we see that all the right has is hate.
You win the “No-Sequitur of the Week” award!
Nope.
Yep. Leftist are not opposed to violence, they simply want it used for THEIR ends.
After last year, how can anyone use the term “experts” with a straight face? It belongs on the trash heap along with “racist” and “liberal”.
Our honored host quoted:
And therein lays the problem with the warmunists specifically and the left in general; when they say, “The choices are many,” so very many of them don’t mean our choices, everyone’s choices, but their choices, choices to be imposed on all by government fiat, backed by the Police Power of the State.
Teach lies and whines: you where thinking these were rules for the people who believe in the climate crisis scam? Silly you. It’s rarely ever about themselves, it’s always about Other People.
There was nothing in the article about only making recommendations for other people. Teach’s lies are getting more frequent and repetitive as if he is even starting to believe them.
Teach whines: it’s not up to Government to dictate my food habits.
and ominously, It’s always about governmental force.
Neither The Atlantic nor the author are part of the government. Does Teach recommend abolishing the USDA and FDA? Anyway, The Party of Personal Responsibility (the GOP) should want agriculture to be responsible for any damages it contributes to the environment.
Teach is making stuff up.
“The Party of Personal Responsibility (the GOP) should want agriculture to be responsible for any damages it contributes to the environment.”
Silly open-ended declarations like this one show us how stupid (and devious) you filthy fascist/communists are.
If a farmer has a field covered in grass and he plows it under, plants corn and then harvests the corn he has by definition contributed to damaging the environment. That was a field of natural grass and the evil farmer changed what nature made just so he could make money off of corn. Do you see how stupid that type of thinking is? It would necessarily mean any act toward progress that changes nature is by definition “damaging the environment”.
But of course that’s what you fascoms want. The total disbanding of the capitalist ethic in the name of pseudo science. Anything to break the West’s economy. We’re evil. Oh, and racists too.
The Elwood :
Why do you hate Whites?
Why do you hate Christians?
Why do you hate America?
WHAT ARE YOU HIDING ???
Commenter: We’re evil. Oh, and racists too.
True. And irresponsible, too!
If raising cattle for beef contributes to global warming (which most con men think is a myth/hoax/scam anyway) shouldn’t market forces be used to reduce that contribution to CO2 pollution? Don’t get me wrong, I love a rare ribeye, but should be willing to pay more for it to help pay for the global remediation needed to combat the effects of global warming. The negative externalities associated with market interactions are often environmental (pollution), health (e.g., tobacco, legal cannabis), moral/societal/economic (drug use, sex work aka “Gaetzism”, gun culture) and end up costing societies.
What is the Commenter hiding??
Mumbling, bumbling, stumbling, fumbling, cockwombling …
Rimjob thinks he’s made a cogent argument or something.
Bwaha! Lolgf
What you are in effect saying is that since every act has negative and/or unintended consequences there should be a constant restructuring of flexible taxes, regulations and penalties to counteract those consequences. First, that is impossible to accomplish while still remaining a Free country and second the costs to the end user (us) would make all goods and services unaffordable except to the ultra rich. Third, it would be so full of graft and corruption it would render the “carbon offsets” scam as a mild grift.
I also would like to point out you are, as usual, basing all these taxes, regulations and penalties on an unproven theory which itself has gone through several changes over the last few decades. Are we to base all your rules and regs on the upcoming Ice Age, Global Warming or Climate Change and exactly how much is man-caused and therefore remedial? Ya don’t know because it’s impossible to know.
“What is the Commenter hiding??”
Repeating my question to you is not answering it. Again, What are you hiding???
What is Commenter KYE hiding? as he keeps massacring the truth. He Lie Massacre?
Scientific theories are not proven. Scientific theories undergo revisions as new information is obtained. This theory predicts that as CO2 increases so will the temperature.
If you’re wrong (likely) then you’ve condemned future generation to hell on Earth. If I’m wrong (unlikely) we’ll have cleaner air, less warming and the opportunity to concentrate on other important human issues, such as, overpopulation, food, thermonuclear war, etc.
The CO2 religion is a hypothesis, it has not risen to the level of a theory. Sure the climate is changing, it has been doing so for 20,000 years, independent of CO2. Now, is the climate warming? That is unknown as climate is a cumulative concept. You have said over and over that the ambient temperature is increasing. Ok, but you seem to be unaware that the temperature dramatically increases just prior to the onset of glaciation. You insist that CO2 is a major influence in climate, yet you have never, ever backed this up with real proof. You constantly link CO2 to fossil fuels, but are unaware of CO2 produced by the earth, in large quantities. Finally, your only answer for this CO2 is tyrannical government and surrendering our wealth and power. You never consider other methods of CO2 reduction other than taxes and government control limited to unilateral restriction on the US and Europe, never China and India, the worse polluters. People who run the numbers on your proposals show no influence on CO2 production, of significance. Also, for some reason, you equate a warm earth with a horrible, desolate environment. Actually the opposite would be true as humans do not handle cold so well. You go on about clean air, but your so called green energies are more deadly than fossil fuels and nuclear. Your assumptions are not knowledgeable or logical and all you do is gaslight and call decent people names as you would expect from a grade school child.
That increased atmospheric CO2 is causing the Earth to warm is a scientific theory.
The increased atmospheric CO2 is from fossil fuel burning, shown by differing isotope ratio of fossil fuel carbon.
Are you predicting that we have a coming glacial period? How did climate scientists miss this?? How should we be preparing for a mile of ice over Chicago?
Do you realize that economists have spend considerable effort evaluating the costs and impacts associated with reducing CO2 emissions and those efforts don’t support your poorly described “tyrannical government and surrendering our wealth and power.
By all means, if you’re the first to invent a method for captured gigatons of CO2 you’ll be a trillionaire and go down in history with Jesus, Abe Lincoln, Buddha, Einstein and Nathan Lane. You suggested a tail pipe capture system but we demonstrated that the math didn’t work – burning a gallon of gasoline generates some 16 pounds of CO2 plus water as vapor.
An Earth that is more than 2C warmer than the mean of the past century is troublesome for human societies. And there is no scientific reason at this time to expect the warming to stop at 2C.
Rimjob has nothing but alarmist cockwombling.
He’s really not very smart.
Bwaha! Lolgf
Compelling argument. I’ll reconsider my preference for facts.
“Is troublesome for human societies….†On the contrary, warmer periods are beneficial to human societies.
“CO2 causing the earth to warm is a scientific theoryâ€. True, and as yet unable to be proved via a simple, repeatable experiment.
Technically, it’s a hypothesis, not a theory.
One that’s is very bad at making predictions, which is the second linchpin of the scientific method.
Sorry, but you are wrong on both counts. The predicts that increasing CO2 will cause the Earth to warm.
What is your theory?
Rimjob is, was, and always will be, a cockwomble.
Bwaha! Lolgf
Jeff,
So fossil fuels burn differently in a care than elsewhere. News to me. But then I think you and your hypothesis are full of crap, like a growing number of scientist.
davis,
The ratio of carbon isotopes incorporated into fossil fuels, from plants hundreds of millions of years ago differs from the ratio in plants today. [14C] is radioactive and decays to nitrogen with a t1/2 of about 5,730 years. 14C is generated in the atmosphere when cosmic rays strike nitrogen atoms. As 14C-depleted and carbon-12 enriched fossil fuels are burned one would predict the concentration of 14C in the atmosphere would decrease as is seen. Carbon-13 is a minor non-radioactive isotope not a prevalent in plant materials but evenly distributed in atmosphere and oceans. The carbon-13 concentration is also decreasing consistent with carbon-12 enriched CO2 entering the atmosphere.
You can read all about it:
https://www.climate.gov/news-features/climate-qa/how-do-we-know-build-carbon-dioxide-atmosphere-caused-humans
Rimjob has bought into the idea that the gradually increasing level of a trace atmospheric gas (CO2, currently about 0.04% of the atmosphere) is going to bring about world climate doom a hundred or so years from now.
Besides being a cockwomble, Rimjob is just not very smart.
Bwaha! Lolgf
And yet trace CO2 is what kept Earth from being an ice coated ball. Amazing, right? Seems like magic but it’s actually based on well-understood physical principles. Infrared radiation (IR), that part of the electromagnetic spectrum that extends from the long wavelength, or red, end of the visible-light range to the microwave range, is absorbed by gases such as carbon dioxide, methane (CH4), nitrous oxide (N2O) and halogenated organic gases. Animals sense IR as warmth.
This is how light in the visible range of the electromagnetic spectrum is converted to IR. As the IR escapes Earth to deep, deep space, it’s journey is slowed by interactions with CO2, H2O, methane etc, warming the atmosphere. Luckily the atmosphere is mostly N2 and O2, otherwise Earth would be more like Venus where the temperature is some 872 °F!!
A lot of “coincidences” have come together on Earth to generate our atmosphere of mostly N2 and O2, that sustains human existence: the evolution of life (yay plants!), abundant water, carbonate formation in rocks…
The only thing amazing is your simple stupidity.
Rimjob proves he’s a cockwomble with every post.
Bwaha! Lolgf
Jefff,
Are you aware of the many stages that fossil fuels go through before they go to your car? likely not. All would change the complex nature of the product. Sorry, your piece had desperation written all over it. And still demonstrate CO2 at trace levels. Then you are presuming to know how fossil fuels were created, a subject that is very controversial.