On June 30th, The Providence Journal posted an article about the United Nations concerns for the heath of the world if people continue to eat meat.
The article reports:
It may be delicious, but the evidence is accumulating that meat, particularly red meat, is just a disaster for the environment – and not so great for human beings, too.
By 2050, scientists forecast that emissions from agriculture alone will account for how much carbon dioxide the world can use to avoid catastrophic global warming. It already accounts for one-third of emissions today – and half of that comes from livestock.
That’s a driving reason why members of a United Nations panel last month urged its environmental assembly to consider recommending a tax on meat producers and sellers. By raising the cost of buying meat, it would ultimately aim to reduce production and demand for it.
Maarten Hajer, professor at the Netherlands’ Utrecht University, led the environment and food report that recommended the meat tax.
“All of the harmful effects on the environment and on health needs to be priced into food products,” said Hajer, who is a member of U.N.’s International Resource Panel, which comprises 34 top scientists and 30 governments. “I think it is extremely urgent.”
First of all, I would like to point out that human beings have canine teeth–they are designed for eating meat. Second of all, I would like to point out that man-caused global warming is a myth. For honest information on global warming see wattsupwiththat.
The United Nations has forgotten its purpose. The United Nations supposedly originally started to avoid world wars by creating a place for negotiation and dialogue and to encourage the expansion of individual freedom in all countries. However, in recent years, the United Nations has become an organization desiring to form a one-world government and take away individual freedom. Agenda 21 is a prime example of this. If you are unfamiliar with Agenda 21, google it or use the search engine on this website. The United Nations wants to control where you live, how big your house is, how much property you own, and now, how you eat.
The article further reports:
But, governments must soon move to limit major carbon producers, Hajer said. Food companies will naturally be part of that.
The idea of a meat tax has developed over the past 25 years as a “completely obvious” measure to economists and environmentalists, Hajer said, as knowledge of the environmental toll of meat emerged.
Agriculture consumes 80 percent of water in the United States. For a kilogram of red meat, you need considerably more water than for plant products.
Governments are starting to take notice. China, which consumes half of the world’s pork and more than a quarter of its overall meat, announced new dietary guidelines last week that advise the average citizen to reduce meat consumption by half. That country’s meat consumption has increased nearly five-fold since 1982, even though their population has only increased by 30 percent during that time.
Denmark went a little further in May. The Danish government is considering a recommendation from its ethics council that all red meats should be taxed. Red meat accounts for 10 percent of all greenhouse gas emissions, and the council argued that Danes were “ethically obliged” to reduce their consumption.
I am very concerned about the world we will be leaving our children and grandchildren. Junk science is not a basis for extorting money from people who produce or eat a product that has fallen out of favor with the elites. My question is simple, “What are they serving at diplomatic dinners at the United Nations?”