Connect with us

Climate Change

Technocrats Demand Meat Tax to Fight Climate Change

Environmental economists want to hike price of beef by 56 per cent.

Published

on

Oscar Wong via Getty Images

A group of environmental economists in Germany is demanding that huge taxes be imposed on meat products to fight climate change, with calls for beef to be 56 per cent more expensive.

Asserting that livestock is responsible for 13 per cent of greenhouse gas emissions, researchers from TU Berlin’s Chair of Sustainable Use of Natural Resources are demanding limitations on meat consumption in order to “attain greenhouse gas neutrality.”

“Livestock farming is a huge contributor to greenhouse gas emissions, soil and water pollution, and precious forests are being cleared for pastures and food crops,” said the leader of the group, Professor Linus Mattauch.

“Evidence suggests the environmental impacts are so large that the world can’t meet climate goals and keep vital ecosystems intact without reducing the consumption of meat – at least in Western high-income countries,” he added.

Mattauch wants governments to “start thinking about also taxing meat to reduce its consumption,” asserting that this is the “most efficient path to preventing further strain on our planet.”

“According to the group’s model calculations, the direct cost of livestock farming in relation to climate change is as high as $9.21 per kilogram of beef,” reports ReMix News. “Applying this cost to the price of beef could result in beef products being as much as 56 percent more expensive. Similarly, poultry would cost 25 percent more, and lamb and pork would rise by 19 percent.”

Such taxes will of course primarily impact the poor, who in many western countries are already suffering due to rampant food inflation.

No doubt the solution to that will be amplifying efforts to encourage everyone to start eating bugs as an alternative and “sustainable” source of protein.

As we previously highlighted, the World Economic Forum published two articles on its website which explored how people could be conditioned to get used to the idea of eating weeds, bugs and drinking sewage water in order to reduce CO2 emissions.

In January last year, the EU officially approved the sale of worms as food to be consumed by humans.

Last month, Vanderbilt University Professor Amanda Little argued that everyone in the world needs to start dining on insects and that the EU’s approval of them conferred a form of “dignity” to their consumption.

One group of people who won’t be eating bugs is technocrat globalists.

Despite insisting that everyone else reduce their living standards and ration their meat eating to save the planet, during last year’s Cop 26 summit, attendees enjoyed a menu full of animal-based dishes that were at least double the carbon footprint of the average UK meal.

SUBSCRIBE on YouTube:

Follow on Twitter:

———————————————————————————————————————

Brand new merch now available! Get it at https://www.pjwshop.com/

PJW Shop

ALERT!

In the age of mass Silicon Valley censorship It is crucial that we stay in touch.

I need you to sign up for my free newsletter here.

Support my sponsor – Turbo Force – a supercharged boost of clean energy without the comedown.

Get early access, exclusive content and behinds the scenes stuff by following me on Locals.

———————————————————————————————————————

Continue Reading
Comments

Climate Change

He Didn’t See This Coming

It took an unexpected turn.

Published

on

Is it really about ‘raising awareness’ when these stunts are despised by the general public, or is it about narcissistic validation with other members of the climate cult?

Please share this video! https://youtu.be/fzytc0ijzoM

SUBSCRIBE on YouTube:

Follow on Twitter:

———————————————————————————————————————

Brand new merch now available! Get it at https://www.pjwshop.com/

PJW Shop

ALERT!

In the age of mass Silicon Valley censorship It is crucial that we stay in touch.

I need you to sign up for my free newsletter here.

Support my sponsor – Turbo Force – a supercharged boost of clean energy without the comedown.

Get early access, exclusive content and behind the scenes stuff by following me on Locals.

———————————————————————————————————————

Continue Reading

Climate Change

Stop Making Us Look Bad!

The truth about Just Stop Oil.

Published

on

Just Stop Oil.

Backed by the establishment, shielded by the state, endorsed by the institutions.

Literal foot soldiers for the regime.

Please share this video! https://youtu.be/DjGEW6eW86g

SUBSCRIBE on YouTube:

Follow on Twitter:

———————————————————————————————————————

Brand new merch now available! Get it at https://www.pjwshop.com/

PJW Shop

ALERT!

In the age of mass Silicon Valley censorship It is crucial that we stay in touch.

I need you to sign up for my free newsletter here.

Support my sponsor – Turbo Force – a supercharged boost of clean energy without the comedown.

Get early access, exclusive content and behind the scenes stuff by following me on Locals.

———————————————————————————————————————

Continue Reading

Climate Change

Exxon Crushes Progressive Dreams That “Net Zero” Has Any Chance By 2050: It Would Mean Collapse In “Global Standard Of Living”

Published

on

Zero Hedge

David McNew/Getty Images

In a world of suffocating snowflakery, ESG hypocrisy and, well… Tranheuser Busch, a corporation telling the truth without fear of reprisals from the Open Society-funded virtue signaling cabal is rarer than an mRNA-injected, genetically engineered hen’s teeth.

And yet that’s what the company hated by every progressive, Exxon Mobil, did this week when it became the first corporation to denounce the insidious and laughable claims that “net zero” is even a remote possibility by 2050.

The US supermajor pushed back against investors pressing the company to report on the risks to its business from restrictions on greenhouse gas emissions and potential environmental disasters when in a reply to proxy advisor Glass Lewis, Exxon said the prospect of the world achieving net-zero carbon dioxide emissions by 2050 is remote and should not be further evaluated in its financial statements.

A shareholder proposal seeking a report on the cost of having to abandon projects faces a shareholder vote on May 31. Glass Lewis backed the initiative, concluding Exxon could face material financial risks from the net-zero scenario.

Exxon disagreed, and said the world is not on a path to achieve net-zero emissions in 2050 as limiting energy production to levels below consumption demand would lead to a spike in energy prices, as observed in Europe following oil sanctions against Russia over Ukraine.

Exxon, is of course, correct however that won’t stop the green fanatics from beating the drum that somehow the world can transition to “green” energy (at a cost of some $150 trillion mind you) in the next 27 years without an energy cataclysm. 

At the heart of the issue is the 2050 net-zero emissions (NZE) scenario of the International Energy Agency (IEA) which envisions a path to limit the global temperature rise to 1.5 degrees Celsius. For the NZE scenario to be met, the IEA had hilariously said new oil exploration would have to have stopped in 2021 and nations would have to switch to renewable energy from fossil fuels (good luck with that). Exxon is among the companies heavily investing in new exploration to generate oil and gas for decades to come, and in retrospect, one can thank their deity of choice for Exxon’s decision to do so as opposed to sending the world back into the dark ages, an outcome which so many from the World Economic Forum seems to aspire to.

“It is clear that the IEA NZE does not, by the scenario authors’ own assessment, meet the level of likelihood required to be considered in our financial statements,” Exxon said in a response filed with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission on Wednesday.

“It is highly unlikely that society would accept the degradation in global standard of living required to permanently achieve a scenario like the IEA NZE,” Exxon said in dismissing the proposal.

Source: Exxon

Exxon also rebutted the woke proxy firm’s recommendation that it evaluate the impacts of a worst-case oil spill at its offshore Guyanese oil platforms. Exxon leads a consortium responsible for all of Guyana’s offshore oil production and its board has recommended against the proposal.

“The requested report clearly would not provide new, decision-useful information,” Exxon said, adding the shareholder request “ignore(s) the time, additional cost, and resources every report takes for the company to prepare.”

As for the IEA, instead of targeting those companies – which despite every effort by the senile US president to drain the US SPR and make the country once again dependent on outside energy sources – are doing everything in their power to retain US energy independence, perhaps it should bring its message to downtown Beijing. We are confident that China will listen to their pimply teenager-inspired “proposals” in a cool, calm and collected manner.

Source: Our world in data
This post was originally published at Zero Hedge

Continue Reading

Trending

Privacy Policy Cookie Policy

Copyright © 2020 Summit News