When it comes to trustworthiness, there are few organizations on the planet deserving less of it than governmental gangs – except, perhaps, the university collectivists who push for even more government. So it’s only fitting that at roughly the same time, the tax-sucking German government, the tax-funded United Nations Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC), and a tax-subsidized university should all together push to make people eat less meat -- to save the climate, of course…
As James Murphy reports for The New American, the IPCC just issued a report “suggesting” that humans eat less meat and more vegetation:
The United Nations Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) has issued a new report that, among other things, urges humanity to eat far less meat. The report claims that a less meaty diet will free up valuable land — especially in Amazonia — to soak up more carbon from the air.
But let’s split the concerns from the organization, and, first, look at the IPCC.
This is the international organization at the center of “Climategate”, one of the biggest, most insultingly obvious instances of questionable “science” in the history of climate science. It’s a story of possible data manipulation and internal communications that many believe were written to direct data changes in order to support an agenda. The IPCC is the tax-funded gang that saw many of its former members defect, due to their concerns over its politicized “science”. Hence, observers saw atmospheric chemist Steven Japar warn:
Temperature measurements show that the [climate model-predicted mid-troposphere] hot zone is non-existent. This is more than sufficient to invalidate global climate models and projections made with them!
The IPCC has been off-the-rails for years, yet the tax-funded locomotive rolls on.
And when it comes to the Amazon Rain Forest, certainly, people can be justifiably concerned. Deforestation has wiped out millions of acres over the last ten years alone. But the question of deforestation, so often attributed to rampant capitalism and supposedly showing the need of government controls, is, in fact, a direct result of a lack of capitalism and the fact that the governments along the Amazon (particularly the nation of Brazil), “own” the land and rent it – just like so many millions of acres in the US that the federal government mismanages.
As Fernando Chiocca writes for Mises.org:
So does the Amazon belong to the Brazilian state? In fact, the Brazilian government possesses the territory where the Amazon rainforest is located.
This is land that was stolen from local inhabitants centuries ago, and is now being rented out to crony interests, abridging any concept of private property rights. But it’s doubtful that we’ll hear anyone in the UN promote the private ownership of the Amazon jungle, because the UN promotes even greater centralized control, not less of it.
Meanwhile, in Germany, another group of busybodies want to tell people how to live, and use the force of the state to make them bend to government will.
German politicians are speaking out in favour of raising the VAT (Mehrwertsteuer) on meat in a bid to improve animal welfare and cut CO2 emissions.
And when they say “in favour”, they mean more than doubling the tax, from 7 percent to 19, then shoveling a portion of these purloined pennies -- like feed itself -- back to the farmers, specifically to make the farmers change their field apportionment, from livestock, to greens.
The observations one could make about German authoritarianism are too numerous and obvious to explore.
But, not to be outdone, Germany’s old adversaries, the “scholarly”, Brits are getting in on the act, all to save the planet, of course.
As Alison Kershaw writes for Yahoo Media UK:
Beef burgers have been banned by a university as part of efforts to tackle the climate emergency… Goldsmiths (no relation, I hope), University of London said it is to remove all beef products from sale from next month as the institution attempts to become carbon neutral by 2025… Students will also face a 10p levy on bottles of water and single-use plastic cups when the academic year starts to discourage use of the products.
One wonders what the school rulers would do if folks on campus began selling burgers or bottled water on the sly, in protest, and as an exercise in peaceful market activity.
And since this is a tax-subsidized school (no surprise), that means people who don’t voluntarily attend it subsidize this policy on campus.
Goldsmith’s has even more pie-in-the-sky plans to “become carbon neutral” – which is impossible, all as part of a vast exercise in mass hysteria, predicated on faulty, politically-driven, tax-funded “science” that has not been borne out by real science.
In fact, two groups of researchers recently – and independently – came to the conclusion that the entire “anthropogenic climate change” argument of the IPCC is bogus.
Yet the politically driven march over the cliffs continues, as the UN and German governments push to make people eat less meat and Goldsmith’s in London pushes to punish students who want burgers, and they all tell us to “be sustainable”.
The next time a hothead rails about “sustainability’ ask that person to define, just once, what "sustainable" means. It's another cypher term that thuggish politicians and their "journalistic" acolytes chant on a regular basis in order to imply "recyclable and good for the environment", when recycling isn't necessarily good for the environment at all. In fact, recycling often requires more energy and net use of natural resources than throwing something away and using a new thing in its place.
The reason these clowns won't be able to define "sustainable" for you is because they've never discussed its meaning, and the reason they haven't is because real sustainability requires a PRICE, and a price requires private property and market choice for people to decide what they value. Collectivism, which is the goal of many, if not most, of the people in politics pushing "sustainability", does not allow for individual valuation, thus it doesn't allow for people to decide prices, and, thus, it doesn't allow the market to reveal what is "sustainable".
This is one of the reasons why economics is so powerful. It’s based on private choice, which, in turn, requires private property and self-control.
Which are precisely what the collectivists pushing “climate change” do not want you to have.
Covered Photo Altered From MaxPixel.