« Robbing Bastards' Hood Tax | Main | Happy Birthday to Nelson Mandela Englishman »

WWF Says Stern Wrong, Macca Also

Tofu can harm environment more than meat, finds WWF study - Times Online

Becoming a vegetarian can do more harm to the environment than continuing to eat red meat, according to a study of the impacts of meat substitutes such as tofu.
The findings undermine claims by vegetarians that giving up meat automatically results in lower emissions and that less land is needed to produce food.
Lord Stern of Brentford, one of the world’s leading climate change economists, told The Times: “Meat is a wasteful use of water and creates a lot of greenhouse gases. It puts enormous pressure on the world’s resources. A vegetarian diet is better.”

Comments

Us all being alive is harming the planet, obviously.

We need to all top ourselves.

God these people are thick.

I would love someone who knows how to research the internet to see if a lot of those who push for "green" are also the "world population HAS to decrease" brigade, like Marie Stopes and the socialist Webbs.

Alan Douglas

Us all being alive is harming the planet, obviously.

We need to all top ourselves.

God these people are thick.

I would love someone who knows how to research the internet to see if a lot of those who push for "green" are also the "world population HAS to decrease" brigade, like Marie Stopes and the socialist Webbs.

Alan Douglas

Meat substitute? As Stephen Green said, a meat substitute is the baked potato I eat in-between mouthfuls of rare steak.

Surely the best solution is for the rest of us to eat people like Lord Stern?
Just tell them its their sacrifice in the name of global warming.

I'm not in the slightest bit green, if fact I think the whole "green" thing is one of the biggest problems the civilised world faces today. However, I think it is very appropriate that the world (and UK) population decrease, albeit by voluntary means, for reasons completely unconnected with "the environment".

Yes, resources and technology CAN support more people (although never indefinite exponential growth), but doing so incurs the huge expense of a lower quality of life for everyone and less scope for individualism - especially with governments who refuse to invest in infrastructure. People are now being indoctrinated into thinking that living a significant proportion of your adult life crammed into a studio flat with no parking or garden is completely acceptable... and yet at the same time criticise farming methods which pack animals into not-dissimilar densities.

With today's mechanised industry, there are already way too few real jobs to keep everyone employed and hence the burgeoning plethora of non-jobs, most of which are public-sector and involve hassling the few people still trying to do real work. A voluntarily-lowered population would tend to move the balance back in the right direction. This is not anti-human - in fact just the opposite. Humans deserve the right to be individuals and this is diluted when populations build up to the level where everyone is little more than a number. But what we don't need is Chinese-style government diktat on birth rates.

Of course, if people were expected to fund (or at least contibute to) children's health and education costs out of their own pocket then it would push things in the right direction whilst also meaning that more births were for the right reasons and into families which had more concern for their future.

Post a comment