oops. Your Agenda is Showing

what’s it all about…

Usually I greet a dropping of pretense with … well, not necessarily joy, but more like relief. It’s always a helluva lot easier to, for instance, clear the rabid skunks out from under the deck if we aren’t also expected to pretend the skunks are sweet kittehs. …or ham sandwiches.

In this instance, it’s more … disturbing.

What is good for us health-wise isn’t always what’s best for the environment,” she said. “That’s important for public officials to know and for them to be cognisant [sic - British news report] of these trade-offs as they develop or continue to develop dietary guidelines in the future.”

That’s from a Carnegie Mellon University study published in the Environment Systems and Decisions journal. They “analysed the impact per calorie of different foods in terms of energy cost, water use and emissions.”

Yeah — major Universities studying — on a per calorie basis — the environmental impact of various foods. So Your Betters™ can tell you — with authority — what you may and may not eat.

Note the unstated presupposition of who is in charge, here.

Also, restructuring the entire agricultural economy. How all food is grown. And processed. And transported. And stored. And consumed. Everywhere. For all Time. According to Teh Elites™. At Universities. As interpreted by Bureaucracies.

What could possibly go worng?

The experts examined how growing, processing and transporting food; sales and service; and household storage and use all take a toll on the environment for different foods

Lettuce is “over three times worse in greenhouse gas emissions than eating bacon”

…eating only the recommended “healthier” foods prescribed in recent advice from the US Department of Agriculture increased a person’s impact on the environment

…even when overall calorie intake was reduced.

Well, yeah. The .gov bureaucrats will be advising [as a start] Caloric Reduction as an initial method. Eat less = grow / transport / process / sell / store less = Smaller Human Footprint!!!

Here’s a clue to how much caloric reduction:
NB “Healthy food” means cutting out meat entirely — completely ignoring all human nutrition science. Apparently that meme has already become Received Truth.

maintaining calorie intake but completely shifting to healthy foods increased energy use by 43 per cent, water use by 16 per cent and emissions by 11 per cent.

But surprisingly, even if people cut out meat and reduced their calories to USDA-recommended levels, their environmental impact would increase across energy use (38 per cent), water (10 per cent) and emissions (6 per cent).

So even though everything they’ve been pushing for decades — according to one .gov-approved ideology — actually takes them badly in the worng direction, according to another .gov-approved ideology.

And yet — this ain’t about the Polar Bearz.

… it was important to look at production methods as well as the complex issue of how land use is “likely to be impacted by changing diets”.

And therein lies the key: Land Use. Land Ownership. Turf. Territory.
Plus: Resources. Food. Water.
The classic motivators for War.

Only this time the War is between .gov control of Land and Food and control of The People exercising their choice via the Free Market in owning / growing / transporting / buying / eating.

I see “Climate Change” as just another War for Control — not just between .gov and Free Market but between individual, sovereign nations and world .gov.

Please. Prove me worng.

21 Comments!

  1. geezerette
    Posted December 16, 2015 at 10:01 am |

    All this and there is no such thing as global warming. Do you think they should be told or just let them keep playing with themselves.

  2. SondraK, Queen of SondraKistan
    Posted December 16, 2015 at 10:22 am |

    Not to throw shade on your magnificent post but the bloody polar bear pic slayed me.

  3. dick, not quite dead white guy
    Posted December 16, 2015 at 10:24 am |

    They didn’t even mention growing corn for ethanol, which is a net negative energy cycle.

    It might be informative to know how much the pseudoscience people receive in grants for perpetuating their benefactors’ script.

    The EPA types have been chasing miniscule returns at increasing cost for some time now. I wonder from time to time at what point they’ll receive a beatdown from some really frightened, angry victims of their scam.

    I can’t prove you wrong, Claire. Those people are whores, both for their grants and their religion.

  4. Fawkes News (Barack Lies Matter)
    Posted December 16, 2015 at 10:31 am |

    They don’t give a damn about The Environment™, and many of them have admitted as much. They want your freedom, your property, your wealth… and, ultimately, your life.

  5. Posted December 16, 2015 at 11:17 am |

    Why do you think I went into the Soylent business? ;-)

  6. Claire: rebellious pink pig with car keys - and a *cause*
    Posted December 16, 2015 at 11:23 am |

    SK @2 — !!!

  7. dick, not quite dead white guy
    Posted December 16, 2015 at 11:56 am |

    I liked the pic of Captain Benghazi riding the pig limo.
    BTW, the polar bear is slobbering blood looking at it.

  8. Ironic in Denver
    Posted December 16, 2015 at 1:22 pm |

    The bear in the first pic is thinking, “Blueberry popsicles are no substitute for seal blubber; I’m going back to my PETA disapproved diet.”

  9. Thunderbottom
    Posted December 16, 2015 at 1:42 pm |

    All these soi-disant “experts” need to be rounded up and fed to “endangered” carnivores (e.g., the polar bear and the Siberian tiger).

  10. Ironic in Denver
    Posted December 16, 2015 at 2:29 pm |

    Are these professors prepared to begin eating 43% less?

  11. DougM (quiet, keeps to himself, kind of a loner, nobody thought he’d do anything like this)
    Posted December 16, 2015 at 2:40 pm |

    Sooo…
    hunting is the preferred method, then?

    Howzabout measuring the per-capita production of freedom?

  12. mech
    Posted December 16, 2015 at 3:45 pm |

    Loading up on more bacon here. It’s on the way home from work and no extra fuel required to harvest from the grocery store.

    I don’t remember the last time I went lettuce hunting in the wild.

    BTW, don’t stiletto heel shooze produce a smaller human footprint?

  13. Ironic in Denver
    Posted December 16, 2015 at 4:07 pm |

    ^ Good for mech! Harvesting bacon in the grocery store avoids the cruel slaughter of hogs like Sarah Palin did down in Texas.

    It isn’t lettuce you hunt in the wild, though, it’s dandelion greens. This may account for not finding any lettuce.

    Think of dandelions as free-range lettuce. Also the greens are good with bacon, maybe?

  14. dick, not quite dead white guy
    Posted December 16, 2015 at 4:48 pm |

    ^ IinD – dandelion greens need a lot of help. Bacon is a good start.

  15. Ironic in Denver
    Posted December 16, 2015 at 4:51 pm |

    ^ My thought exactly. Plus they’re so “healthy” it will balance out the bacon…

    …..Wait! Can’t you make wine with dandelions? Things are looking up after all.

  16. Paladin
    Posted December 16, 2015 at 5:58 pm |

    Lettuce is “over three times worse in greenhouse gas emissions than eating bacon”

    Which I read as

    MOAR BAKON!!!!!!!!!

  17. mech
    Posted December 16, 2015 at 6:06 pm |

    Plus, some kinds of lettuce give people gas!…..extra methane.

    Now when I hear them taxing or banning carbonated beverages, that will be the beginning of the end.

    HANDS OFF MY ROOT BEER!

  18. Ironic in Denver
    Posted December 16, 2015 at 6:45 pm |

    ^ Maybe they should tax the twice gaseous lettuce instead.

  19. DougM (quiet, keeps to himself, kind of a loner, nobody thought he’d do anything like this)
    Posted December 16, 2015 at 6:52 pm |

    On my daily TR6 exercise today out along the back roads here in NC, I stopped to let a nice, big, black wild sow and her piglet cross and wander off without a care in the world into a sparse covert. The little’n was kind’a cute, but its mama (the bacony one) just made me salivate.

  20. Ironic in Denver
    Posted December 16, 2015 at 9:21 pm |

    ^ Meanwhile, a UFO, hidden behind it’s invisibility cloak, hovered overhead while the salivating crew looked Doug over as a possible meal.

    “Nah, too tough to be tasty, and nasty sharp teeth besides. Let’s go find a nice young liberal in a gun free zone and abduct that instead.”

    And off they went.

  21. Claire: rebellious pink pig with car keys - and a *cause*
    Posted December 17, 2015 at 8:46 am |

    mech @12 – don’t stiletto heel shooze produce a smaller human footprint?

    Remember the concerns about stiletto heels punching holes in floors [particularly airplane] as [they claimed] a 125# woman creates 450# force / sq. inch walking in a stiletto heel? [or something]

    ahhhhh… Good Times….