Skip to content

How Copenhagen could threaten NZ’s very future

27/10/2009

An extremely disturbing report in The Times. Apparently, Nihcolas, Lord Stern the author of the Stern Report on Climate Change has commented:-

People will need to consider turning vegetarian if the world is to conquer climate change, according to a leading authority on global warming.

In an interview with The Times, Lord Stern of Brentford said: “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.”

Direct emissions of methane from cows and pigs is a significant source of greenhouse gases. Methane is 23 times more powerful than carbon dioxide as a global warming gas.

Now back in September last year, Adam pointed out that Rajendra Pachauri , Chairman of the IPCC, was setting out to promote this strategy.

At that time Adam noted:-

Climate change is fast becoming an attack on many aspects of our daily life.

Why can people not see that the global alarmists would, if they get their way, stop many poor countries improving their lot and ruin the economies of others as NZ for one would go down the gurgler if some of the wilder flights of fancy of the alarmists are allowed to take hold, for example restrictions on flying putting an end to tourism, not buying imported food -shutting down the dairy and meat industries. Where these alarmists think they are going to get their industrial goods from God only knows and he/she is not telling.

Fewer or no cows – no leather for shoes or clothing or furniture amongst other examples. No by products for bio fuels amongst other things. Fewer or no sheep, no wool for clothing or carpets. Yet with the forecast decline in oil, will we not need wool to replace artificial fibres

Thus it is clear that some people such as Lord Stern seem to think nothing of destroying economies such as New Zealand, let alone much of farming in UK and Europe for that is the logical outcome of comments such as this one:-

He predicted that people’s attitudes would evolve until meat eating became unacceptable. “I think it’s important that people think about what they are doing and that includes what they are eating,” he said. “I am 61 now and attitudes towards drinking and driving have changed radically since I was a student. People change their notion of what is responsible. They will increasingly ask about the carbon content of their food.”

Stern talks about going vegetarian, but logically that means no dairy because dairy cows emit methane.

How does someone like Stern propose to deal with the issue of sacred cows in India, the fact that in Africa many still count their wealth in terms of cattle. Water buffalo elsewhere in Asia.

Frankly, Adam doubts that people will stand for such nonsense. Thus it is vitally important that the Key/Groser initiative to aggressively promote research into improved farming and animal husbandry with a view to reducing methane outputs gains significant traction, else NZ plus many developing nations seem destined to be Gored and Sterned back to subsistence economies.

Incidentally the question has to be asked of people who pomote such idiocies, if oil is going to run out so we need to reduce use of fossil fuels and we severely constrict, if not eliminate, many herds of animal – the how the hell are we going to clothe ourselves without leather and wool and with little or no artificial textiles either.

Somewhat tongue in cheek Adam wrote last September:-

In New Zealand if the IPCC gets it’s way we will not need an ETS as the majority will have left and the rest will be eking a living from subsistence farming and regressing over time to the stone age as the economy goes backwards.

No doubt what remains of a government, travelling by canoe to say Australia, will claim world leadership in combating climate change. But who will care.

Ok, somewhat fantastical , but daily more and more nonsense is promulgated and scenarios where everything is regulated in order to save the planet become more prevalent, so that one is forced to ask why bother? Sometimes ridicule may be the only thing that causes sense to break through.

Truly we are succumbing to the tyranny of those who to save us would first enslave us – the climate change jihadists.

One commenter at The Times, responding to the piece on Stern’s comments, wrote in part:-

Our empirical evidence suggests that the most likely cause of an untimely death might likely be from the policies and police of the self-appointed do-gooders who believe that their elitist status is a mandate to enslave humanity “for it’s own good.” The greatest murders throughout the history of mankind went about their “work” with the stated intention of “saving” humanity. It is a shame the rational people fail to understand history, a study that might prepare them for the next version of tyranny.

Let us make sure that our politicians have no mandate to agree to anything that would destroy our economy. Clearly Key would not agree to a deal of that kind, but this article shows how what was once seen by many as loony tunes ideas is now gaining traction with the capacity to destroy economic growth. Moreover, protectionists in the EU and the USA will use statements such as Stern’s to seek to further reduce if not eliminate the global meat and dairy trades so as to protect their own farmers at the expense of NZ, Africa and Asia.

Therefore, the establishment of Asean Plus 6 as a trading bloc to rival and preferably eclipse at least the EU should be seen as priority for NZ.

Adam wants to see vigorous effort by NZ Inc to combat nonsense such as Stern’s. We cannot afford for this to become part of the fabric of debate, along with other lunatic rubbish such as food miles.

For those who think Adam is being alarmist Stern, Pachauri along with Gore are seen as 3 of the most influential figures at Copenhagen according to The Times.

5 Comments
  1. 29/10/2009 00:22

    Interesting post.

    Lord Stern’s words do sound weird and scary, released into the NZ we know today.

    My understanding of this debate is that yes, meat production is very energy and waste intensive, and it would help the environment, and therefore society, and the future economy on top of that, if we all turned vegan.

    I don’t think there’s a suggestion that will happen. However, we should try and use that scale of change as a marker of the “gap” we have to make up somehow, with some brilliant innovation or something, if we think we’re going to keep this lifestyle we’re enjoying.

    I don’t think Lord Stern would be worried about sending NZ’s economy into the “dark ages”, because his assumption is that our economy (like everyone’s) will undergo many forced dramatic structural changes if we don’t prepare in some way.

    Climate change is only one aspect. Whether cyclical or manmade, it is going to have a material effect on global economies and the environments they rely on.

    Then there are the limits to growth that have been predicted and ignored by the bottom-line-minded for 40+ years. A whole cluster of minerals crucial to LCDs and cellphones are estimated to become scarce in the next ten years, and about a dozen other key metals in the next twenty.
    Then of course there is the oil supply. No, society won’t go backwards, but we’re going to have to respond with much more creativity coming down the energy slope than we showed heading up.

    Despite decades being used as an anti-environment rebuttal, short term self-interest has not yet developed the technology we need. Research such as that by Lord Stern takes a long-view perspective we’re not used to hearing. I love meat, and even though I don’t like hearing it, I take it his words as an honest appraisal of the seriousness we face.

    If we don’t Veganism is less likely to be a strategy we adopt, than a necessity that is forced upon us.

    Like

  2. Serum permalink
    28/10/2009 09:18

    Lord Stern has been reported in the The Times as saying:

    ‘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.’

    Could it be that some of the vegetables digested by this former chief economist of the World Bank has had a disturbing mind altering effect and is still lingering within his brain cells causing him to predict imminent doom for the planet via the nation’s farm cows.

    While he prattles on in predictable fashion of how we must all avoid the imminent climate Armageddon by ceasing to eat meat and thus by extension destroy many economies, the global temperatures are falling, the global ice cover is increasing, the now record numbers of polar bears existing, and more growing evidence that the research underpinning the theory of anthropogenic global warming – supported by inadequate computer modeling – is suspect if not fatally flawed.

    Like

  3. Ed Snack permalink
    28/10/2009 08:42

    Stern is an absolute A Grade f***wit, pumped up with the pomposity of self importance. Until he is prepared to acknowledge that animals don’t produce methane, bacteria do, then he simply cannot understand the foolishness of his pronouncements. The largest sources of methane are boreal forests and rice paddy type cultivation, because that’s where rotting vegetation is turned into methane by bacteria in the greatest quantities. If you remove the animals but leave the vegetation, the bacteria still get to work and produce methane.

    Grain fed animals are not a particularly economical method, grass feed is better. Grass fed animals are simply part of the normal natural cycle, taking in about what they give off. It is the faulty Kyoto accounting that only counts farming outputs that is a major problem, driving people towards paper solutions that in fact make the situation worse.

    Like

  4. Sally permalink
    27/10/2009 23:55

    The cold reality is that the IPCC is a political band that has shamelessly used its position to the detriment of science and ethics.

    The now discredited Hockey Stick graph was the overruling evidence that sold governments around the world, to ratify the Kyoto Protocol. How disgraceful to find that the auditing to test the integrity of the theories of the well paid pro-global warming scaremongers has been left to unpaid volunteers.

    Cutting emissions to mitigate climate change based on computer-based predictions is not the answer. The damage to the world’s poorest people inflicted by ideological environmental activists is totally abhorrent.

    Like

Trackbacks

  1. Shoot the lot « Homepaddock

Comments are closed.

%d bloggers like this: