• Thanks for stopping by. Logging in to a registered account will remove all generic ads. Please reach out with any questions or concerns.

Comment: COP15's absurd proposed planetary diet ignores reality

daftandbarmy

Army.ca Dinosaur
Reaction score
32,153
Points
1,160
Just when you thought you'd heard just about every kind of globalist lunacy...



Comment: COP15's absurd proposed planetary diet ignores reality

A commentary by the senior director of the Agri-Food Analytics Lab at Dalhousie University in Halifax.

COP15 on biodiversity has brought thousands of delegates to Montreal to address critical issues our planet is facing. Related to food systems, delegates are discussing agroecology, food-systems intensification and consideration of fisheries in food security.

One issue catching some people’s attention is diet and overconsumption. That’s right, food is being discussed in Montreal.

Many believe that food systems are the single largest cause of biodiversity loss on land, and the pressure our diets put on our biodiversity is significant. So COP15 looks at diets and the overconsumption of food.

The “diet and overconsumption” motion, which really entails the reduction of animal protein consumption, is supported by the EU, but opposed by Paraguay, Argentina and Canada.

The motion itself appears to be largely inspired by the EAT-Lancet “planetary health diet,” half of which is comprised of fruit and vegetables, with whole grains, unsaturated plant oils and plant-sourced proteins also playing a large role. Animal protein, including dairy and eggs, would represent about 10 per cent of the diet, that’s it.

Our animal protein industry’s GDP contribution exceeds well over $60 billion. More critically, our dairy industry’s contribution to our economy exceeds $20 billion annually and relies on a government-sanctioned quota system for its protection. Same for poultry and eggs.

This regime has been incredibly safeguarded by all political stripes in Ottawa over the past 50 years. No wonder Canada is against it, and very few see that changing anytime soon. But, of course, you never know with Ottawa these days. Additionally, more than 35 per cent of the current Canadian diet includes some form of animal protein. The suggested diet at COP15 dedicates only 10 per cent of a diet to animal proteins.

That motion alone suggests COP15 is persuaded somewhat by idealistic and extremist views on what our food systems should look like. And based on some media coverage, debates are not welcomed either.

Extreme environmental groups have claimed now that lobby groups representing seed, chemical and fertilizer giants have no place at COP15. They are wondering why some were accredited in the first place.

These groups believe they literally own the moral pathway to a greener planet and other groups shouldn’t have any influence.

The belief is that companies like Bayer, Corteva, Syngenta-ChemChina, Synagri and Sollio should be silenced and excluded from COP15 altogether.

This is beyond concerning. The ultimate objective of agri-environmental groups is to turn the entire world organic, which is neither sustainable nor desirable.


Comment: COP15's absurd proposed planetary diet ignores reality
 
The most threatened and diverse biomass on the planet is the grasslands. Guess where all that “plant based protein” comes from (or will have to come from)? Tearing up the grasslands to grow soybeans and lentils is not the way to save the planet.
 
The most threatened and diverse biomass on the planet is the grasslands. Guess where all that “plant based protein” comes from (or will have to come from)? Tearing up the grasslands to grow soybeans and lentils is not the way to save the planet.
And it will be fertilized…how?

Without cows- no manure.

And governments have already decided that natural gas based fertilizers are evil so…mass starvation it is, then.
 
The most threatened and diverse biomass on the planet is the grasslands. Guess where all that “plant based protein” comes from (or will have to come from)? Tearing up the grasslands to grow soybeans and lentils is not the way to save the planet.

And crazy people are shutting down fish farms now too, so...
 
And you need grazing animals to maintain a healthy grassland. Ranchers know this but they’re the bad guys in all this.
There were, by some estimates 60 million Bison in North America in 1860, on a Great Plains heavily modified by fire and optimised for grazing herds, by First Nations.

Today, there are about 60 million cattle in North America. On a landscape heavily modified by humans.

Do you see where I am going with this?
 
The ultimate objective of agri-environmental groups is to turn the entire world organic, which is neither sustainable nor desirable.
It'd be a lot worse than that. Mass starvation, with dead bodies beyond the capacity of some polities to manage, so they would get pestilence too. Of course, it'd obviously be a resource shortage, so there'd be competition for resources, aka war.

If things got bad enough, it'd spill into Canada. At some point none of the mouth-breathing rednecks would be willing to venture into cities to deliver fuel and groceries. Then we would re-learn a couple of things: the more your tech reliance and the more your population concentration, the harder you crash.

The people advocating contraction and conservation are dicing with death.
 
There were, by some estimates 60 million Bison in North America in 1860, on a Great Plains heavily modified by fire and optimised for grazing herds, by First Nations.

Today, there are about 60 million cattle in North America. On a landscape heavily modified by humans.

Do you see where I am going with this?
Cattle are the new Bison? 😉



Since this made me think of it…

“What did the buffalo say to his son before his son went to school?”

“Bye, son!”

You’re welcome 😎
 
And crazy people are shutting down fish farms now too, so...
Why? Like actually though…why?

(I swear, if it’s because the fish don’t give us consent to catch them, I’m gonna lose my freakin’ mind…)
 
As someone who raises ruminants for meat and I have grown oats, barley, sunflower, peas, peas, peas, fall rye, winter wheat, I will say this.

Crops, even ones that grow well in Northern environments, are resources and energy intensive. Doesn't matter if you use hand, horse or tractor. Very intensive and gobbles up time, money and resources (natural or chemical fertilizers)

Ruminants, should be the dominant food source to eat. They practically raise themselves. and reward the environment with lots of benefits. COP arm chair theorist have their collective heads shoved up their asses
 
As someone who raises ruminants for meat and I have grown oats, barley, sunflower, peas, peas, peas, fall rye, winter wheat, I will say this.

Crops, even ones that grow well in Northern environments, are resources and energy intensive. Doesn't matter if you use hand, horse or tractor. Very intensive and gobbles up time, money and resources (natural or chemical fertilizers)

Ruminants, should be the dominant food source to eat. They practically raise themselves. and reward the environment with lots of benefits. COP arm chair theorist have their collective heads shoved up their asses

And the there's rice....

Should We Eat Less Rice?​

Digging into the statistics about rice farming and climate change

Your Bowl of Rice Is Hurting the Climate Too” reads a Bloomberg headline from June. “Rice cultivation could be as bad for global warming as 1,200 coal plants, so why aren’t consumers more bothered? Eco-conscious consumers are giving up meat and driving electric cars to do their part for the environment, but what about that bowl of rice?” I was irritated as soon as I read it. It was probably a combination of the whataboutism and the focus on a food that is eaten much more in Asia and Africa than the U.S. and Europe when overall Americans and Europeans have caused a lot more greenhouse gas emissions per capita than Africans and Asians. To top it off, what should I make of the 1200 coal plants number? How much of a climate impact “should” the staple food of billions of humans have?

The article is full of figures. They all sound impressive, but I didn’t really understand how to interpret them. Rice is “just as damaging over the long term as annual carbon dioxide emissions from fossil fuels in Germany, Italy, Spain and the U.K. combined.” (Do Germany, Italy, Spain, and the U.K. all rely on fossil fuels for most of their energy? How do the populations of those four countries compare to the population that relies on rice for a significant proportion of their calories? How should I compare climate impact of the farming of one crop for the entire world to the climate impact from all causes in a few countries?) “Global production of milled rice has increased 230% since 1960.” (How much has the population increased since then?) Rice production emits “twice as much of the harmful gases as wheat.” (Is more rice or wheat consumed?) “Growing rice in flooded conditions causes up to 12% of global emissions of methane, a gas blamed for about one quarter of global warming caused by humans.” (What are the major sources of anthropogenic methane emissions? Methane from rice farming causes 3% of anthropogenic global warming. Is that a lot? Food is one of the least optional sources of greenhouse gas emissions, after all. Plenty of people live without cars, flights, or electricity, but calories are a must.)

 
The most threatened and diverse biomass on the planet is the grasslands. Guess where all that “plant based protein” comes from (or will have to come from)? Tearing up the grasslands to grow soybeans and lentils is not the way to save the planet.
Not to mention about 100 years ago they did that in Texas and Oklahoma. Guess what happened?

The Dust Bowl. Then 1929 and the stock market crash. They need to look at history but fools that they are won't.
 
I keep in touch with real climate NGOs (Savory Institute, Soil4Climate, etc) and they basically treat COP as a "Feel good, talk garbage and achieve nothing" conferences. Hence why you have COP XX (whatever number insert)

Its funny how these "climate wizards" never mention anything about reversing desertification (since its only possible to do so with large herds of grazing herbivores, usually ruminants). Deserts create major "heat containers" that repel water precipitation and drive it off (Hence why some places get way more rain then they need while a thousand KM away, they can't get a drop of rain to land. Dr Walter Jenhe explains this cyclic disruption very well.
 

Similar threads

Back
Top