How the GW myth is perpetuated
- Thread starter Walter
- Start date
IPCC announces Fatwa on meat eating
The Steak is coming to get you.
Good news, the Intergovernmental Holy Panel has finally released the new World-Saving IPCC Diet (WSID) which will stop storms, volcanoes and the spread of jellyfish. It also solves all those difficult dietary questions — instead of worrying about your weight, your blood pressure, or your brain, you can sip on a soy latte and know that even if you get dementia from the B12 deficiency or the tofu, you are A Virtuous Signaller. Lucky you.
And even though an atmospheric physicist supposedly can’t advise us on the climate, it’s fine for a climate scientist to tell us what to eat. They already tell us what car to drive and how many kids we should have. Why not?
Vegetarian diets and a “sin” tax on unsustainable meat could help to limit climate change, a major new report by the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change says.
–The Australian
Sinning with meat for 2 million years?
Humans have been eating meat for 2.6 million years at least, or about 100,000 generations, but it’s time to take the precautionary principle and toss that genetic heritage to the wind.
Meat is a good (as in “the only”) source of Cobalamin, known as vitamin B12, which your body uses to make the myelin sheath on nerves among other things (it’s the insulation on your personal electricity grid). The side effects of not getting enough include:
…demyelinisation of peripheral nerves, the spinal cord, cranial nerves and the brain, resulting in nerve damage and neuropsychiatric abnormalities. Neurological symptoms of vitamin B12 deficiency include numbness and tingling of the hands and feet, decreased sensation, difficulties walking, loss of bowel and bladder control, memory loss, dementia, depression, general weakness and psychosis.3,4 Unless detected and treated early, these symptoms can be irreversible. — Zeuschner et al 2013
Meat is also the best source for creatine, carnitine, methionine, DHA, taurine and iron. Obviously millions of people do fine without meat, but it’s a bit of a bummer for those with defective enzymes or SNP (single nucleotide polymorphisms) in any of these pathways. Some people just shouldn’t be vegetarians. (I know, I was one).
Then there is the infamous Honolulu Heart Study and the dementia-increasing effect of soy, which appears to be replicated in elderly Chinese, Indonesians and Japanese Americans. Other researchers say soy consumption may be a significant contributor to Alzheimer’s dementia. (So may a lot of other things, it has to be said). We could call this side effect “Global Dumbing”. If only it were a joke.
There looks like some unfortunate trade-offs in trying to reduce global temperatures with our dinner plates. I have barely got started on the health effects, the risks, the costs involved.
If only the ABC / BBC / CBC had well funded specialist science units which could ask those kind of questions. Oh wait…
As it is, dieticians have a torrid time trying to figure out what humans should eat, only a cult fanatic would think climate models would do it better.
In the IPCC SRCCL (Book of Chapter 7 titled: Risk management and decision making in relation to sustainable development they talk about trade-offs, and poverty, but don’t mention SNPs, or cobalamin, or B12, or even the word “vitamin”. Perhaps it’s in some other chapter? It’s not in the Summary for Policymakers, and not in Chapter 1. Nevermind.
Tax the oceans instead
In any case the reason cows and sheep are being targeted in the first place were because of methane emissions, and as Tom Quirk found here, global methane levels appear to be mostly due to El Ninos, rainfall and leaky Russian pipes.
How many healthy people do we sacrifice to the weather Gods this time?
Save the forests, burn more coal
If the IPCC are so concerned about forest destruction the best thing they could suggest is to cut back solar and wind power and biofuels which use up to 500 times as much land area as fossil fuels or nuclear power does.
And if people are concerned about food security ponder that the IPCC says that about a third of food is lost or wasted. (Quoting Pep Canadell, executive director of the Global Carbon Project and a researcher at CSIRO). Sounds like we have plenty to spare then, especially if we stop trying to feed good food to cars instead of people .
The IPCC Press release is titled — Land is A Critical Resource. Like we didn’t know that.
As expected from the Groupthink Fashion Leaders of the World, the key statistics are not about the planet, the cows or the plants, but about them:
Key statistics of the Special Report on Climate Change and Land
The report was prepared by 107 experts from 52 countries who acted as:
15 Coordinating Lead Authors
71 Lead Authors
21 Review Editors
This is the first IPCC report in which a majority of the authors (53%) are from developing countries. Women account for 40% of the Coordinating Lead Authors.
Life on Earth is at risk, but the IPCC still has time to count their diversity score.
h/t Pat, George and Dave B
The globalist U.N. elite,
Now tell us what we must eat,
And to drink soy latte,
To keep hurricanes away,
Which are caused by eating red meat.
–Ruairi
REFERENCES
The Summary for Policymakers of the Special Report on Climate Change and Land (SRCCL) is available at https://ipcc.ch/report/srccl. A Fact Sheet and Headline Statements are available at www.ipcc.ch. All the chapters and details you don’t want to read are available.
Carol L Zeuschner, Bevan D Hokin, Kate A Marsh, Angela V Saunders, Michelle A Reid and Melinda R Ramsay (2013) Vitamin B12 and vegetarian diets, Med J Aust 2013; 199 (4): S27-S32. || doi: 10.5694/mja11.11509
The Steak is coming to get you.
Good news, the Intergovernmental Holy Panel has finally released the new World-Saving IPCC Diet (WSID) which will stop storms, volcanoes and the spread of jellyfish. It also solves all those difficult dietary questions — instead of worrying about your weight, your blood pressure, or your brain, you can sip on a soy latte and know that even if you get dementia from the B12 deficiency or the tofu, you are A Virtuous Signaller. Lucky you.
And even though an atmospheric physicist supposedly can’t advise us on the climate, it’s fine for a climate scientist to tell us what to eat. They already tell us what car to drive and how many kids we should have. Why not?
Vegetarian diets and a “sin” tax on unsustainable meat could help to limit climate change, a major new report by the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change says.
–The Australian
Sinning with meat for 2 million years?
Humans have been eating meat for 2.6 million years at least, or about 100,000 generations, but it’s time to take the precautionary principle and toss that genetic heritage to the wind.
Meat is a good (as in “the only”) source of Cobalamin, known as vitamin B12, which your body uses to make the myelin sheath on nerves among other things (it’s the insulation on your personal electricity grid). The side effects of not getting enough include:
…demyelinisation of peripheral nerves, the spinal cord, cranial nerves and the brain, resulting in nerve damage and neuropsychiatric abnormalities. Neurological symptoms of vitamin B12 deficiency include numbness and tingling of the hands and feet, decreased sensation, difficulties walking, loss of bowel and bladder control, memory loss, dementia, depression, general weakness and psychosis.3,4 Unless detected and treated early, these symptoms can be irreversible. — Zeuschner et al 2013
Meat is also the best source for creatine, carnitine, methionine, DHA, taurine and iron. Obviously millions of people do fine without meat, but it’s a bit of a bummer for those with defective enzymes or SNP (single nucleotide polymorphisms) in any of these pathways. Some people just shouldn’t be vegetarians. (I know, I was one).
Then there is the infamous Honolulu Heart Study and the dementia-increasing effect of soy, which appears to be replicated in elderly Chinese, Indonesians and Japanese Americans. Other researchers say soy consumption may be a significant contributor to Alzheimer’s dementia. (So may a lot of other things, it has to be said). We could call this side effect “Global Dumbing”. If only it were a joke.
There looks like some unfortunate trade-offs in trying to reduce global temperatures with our dinner plates. I have barely got started on the health effects, the risks, the costs involved.
If only the ABC / BBC / CBC had well funded specialist science units which could ask those kind of questions. Oh wait…
As it is, dieticians have a torrid time trying to figure out what humans should eat, only a cult fanatic would think climate models would do it better.
In the IPCC SRCCL (Book of Chapter 7 titled: Risk management and decision making in relation to sustainable development they talk about trade-offs, and poverty, but don’t mention SNPs, or cobalamin, or B12, or even the word “vitamin”. Perhaps it’s in some other chapter? It’s not in the Summary for Policymakers, and not in Chapter 1. Nevermind.
Tax the oceans instead
In any case the reason cows and sheep are being targeted in the first place were because of methane emissions, and as Tom Quirk found here, global methane levels appear to be mostly due to El Ninos, rainfall and leaky Russian pipes.
How many healthy people do we sacrifice to the weather Gods this time?
Save the forests, burn more coal
If the IPCC are so concerned about forest destruction the best thing they could suggest is to cut back solar and wind power and biofuels which use up to 500 times as much land area as fossil fuels or nuclear power does.
And if people are concerned about food security ponder that the IPCC says that about a third of food is lost or wasted. (Quoting Pep Canadell, executive director of the Global Carbon Project and a researcher at CSIRO). Sounds like we have plenty to spare then, especially if we stop trying to feed good food to cars instead of people .
The IPCC Press release is titled — Land is A Critical Resource. Like we didn’t know that.
As expected from the Groupthink Fashion Leaders of the World, the key statistics are not about the planet, the cows or the plants, but about them:
Key statistics of the Special Report on Climate Change and Land
The report was prepared by 107 experts from 52 countries who acted as:
15 Coordinating Lead Authors
71 Lead Authors
21 Review Editors
This is the first IPCC report in which a majority of the authors (53%) are from developing countries. Women account for 40% of the Coordinating Lead Authors.
Life on Earth is at risk, but the IPCC still has time to count their diversity score.
h/t Pat, George and Dave B
The globalist U.N. elite,
Now tell us what we must eat,
And to drink soy latte,
To keep hurricanes away,
Which are caused by eating red meat.
–Ruairi
REFERENCES
The Summary for Policymakers of the Special Report on Climate Change and Land (SRCCL) is available at https://ipcc.ch/report/srccl. A Fact Sheet and Headline Statements are available at www.ipcc.ch. All the chapters and details you don’t want to read are available.
Carol L Zeuschner, Bevan D Hokin, Kate A Marsh, Angela V Saunders, Michelle A Reid and Melinda R Ramsay (2013) Vitamin B12 and vegetarian diets, Med J Aust 2013; 199 (4): S27-S32. || doi: 10.5694/mja11.11509
We've already had frost warnings.I Believe............I believe.........
Run out and get yourself a gluten burger and all will be fine and artificially fortified.
Yuuuuum.
The stupidity is endless.
If these people put the same energy and money into teaching people how to create fertile soil as they do into being Chicken Littles we'd all go to bed with smiles and full bellies.
MARC STEINER: Welcome to The Real News Network. I’m Marc Steiner. Good to have you all with.
The IPCC, which is the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, released a new report. The last report showed us the dangers of a 1.5 Celsius degree rise in temperatures, and what that could do to us, what it is doing to us. This new report, called “Climate Change and the Land,” shows the disastrous results of how two very complicated issues intersect to endanger our future. It focuses on how our use of the land contributes to climate change, and how climate change affects the land. As climate change makes farming more difficult, our methods of farming also devastate the wetlands, forests, rainforests, which exacerbates and increases the intensity of climate change itself. The end of the report offered some solutions, but we’ll explore what all that means in this conversation with our guest, Diana Ruiz.
Diana Ruiz is the Senior Palm Oil Campaigner for Greenpeace USA. She’s based in DC, and she’s leading the work to make zero deforestation in Indonesia a reality. No easy task. She has worked to make change and hold United States corporations accountable in countries including Indonesia, India, Peru and Ecuador. And Diana focuses on the range of issues that draw from industrial chemicals systems to pesticide regulations, climate mitigation and adaptation, which means that she’s a very busy woman and took time to talk to us today. And Diana Ruiz, welcome. Good to have you with us.
DIANA RUIZ: Yeah. Thank you for having me.
MARC STEINER: So let me begin by showing this clip that actually from the IPCC report itself, when they offered the report, and this is one of the co-chair’s report, giving her overview of what the report is.
VALERIE MASSON-DELMOTE, IPCC CO-CHAIR: The way we produce food and what we eat contributes to the loss of natural ecosystems and declining biodiversity. When land is degraded, it reduces the soil’s ability to take up carbon, and this exacerbates climate change. In turn, climate change exacerbates land degradation in many different ways. Today, 500 million people live in areas that’s experienced desertification. People living in already degraded or desertified areas are increasingly negatively affected by climate change.
MARC STEINER: So that was the Co-chair of the IPCC. And so let’s talk a bit about what she was saying. This was the overarching look at the report because it does something that I think that has been very hard to do. I understand the report had over 170 people in the 7,000 research projects they put together to come up with this report. But showing the interaction between the earth itself and climate change and how they interact is something that most people have not yet really considered in terms of looking at what we face for the future.
DIANA RUIZ: Yes. The, the IPCC land report really exposes the reality facing the world’s forests, and how we use our land for key agricultural commodities that are used in everything we consume and also in beauty products. For example, palm oil is one of those key drivers of deforestation that is putting a lot of stress on lands, especially in Southeast Asia. And soy is another key agricultural commodity along with the production of meat and dairy.
MARC STEINER: One of the things—What you just said to me is one of the glaring pieces. On the one hand you have this report talking about palm oil production, and production that has nothing to do with eating or the food that we consume, but is completely corporate-driven in terms of what they’re trying to sell to the world like palm oil, devastating rain forests to build these giant plantations.
But even here in the United States, the report shows that, I think they said we had 591 million acres in cropland, but only one fifth of that land is used to grow crops that feed human beings. The rest are soy and corn for industrial use to feed livestock like pigs and cattle. So it really, in many ways, we can talk about the desperation of people and what they’re trying to farm around the world, but in many ways, this problem is being driven, it seems to me, by corporations, the need for profit, what to sell us.
DIANA RUIZ: Well, you bring up a good point when you look at the United States. What we’re seeing now is more of an increase and it’s not just the United States. You’re seeing it in Brazil. You’re seeing it in other parts of the world. But the intensity and the increase of, for example, soy and palm oil that is being produced to feed cattle or poultry as part feed, and it’s that part of that sick system of the way agricultural production for these types of commodities is aggressively converting land. We’re at a critical point where we face a limited amount of land. That is having huge implications on the security of the future of the production of food.
MARC STEINER: I mean, so not only does the deforestation of our planet to create these plantations create greater pollution because of the methane and everything else that it releases. And when you destroy wetlands, I was surprised to see how much more in gigatons that it releases in the atmosphere, on top of what’s happening with our fossil fuels to get us from place to place. That’s something else that I think don’t really put their hands around yet – is the extent to which how we farm and what we farm actually does contribute to the pollution that we’re facing.
DIANA RUIZ: Yeah, absolutely. Agriculture is one of the… It is the leading driver of deforestation together with forestry and other land use. It represents 23% of human greenhouse gas emissions.
MARC STEINER: So the question is—Well, let’s take a look. This is an interesting clip. This has to do with soil devastation, and that came out this report. This is a British scientist and we’ll watch what she has to say.
KAREN JOHNSON, DURHAM UNIVERSITY: Life is at risk ultimately and that’s because all the things that we take for granted, resources that are more at the top of people’s minds like water and air, healthy air, et cetera, are related to healthy soils. Unfortunately, because we’ve not been looking after soils, we’ve been taking out more than we’ve been putting in. But if we year on year don’t return 30% of all organic matter that we take out of the soil, we don’t return it to the soil, then we see soil degradation because that organic matter is the glue that holds the little bits of rock, the minerals together.
MARC STEINER: So, and that was Sarah Johnson—Karen Johnson, excuse me, who’s professor of environmental engineering. But so what she describes here has a couple of – really attacks things in a couple of ways. I want you to comment on this. One has to do with what they’re doing to the soil itself, and what that’s releasing into the atmosphere, but also destroying the soil so we can’t grow things. But B, one of the things that side bars all this, and a major one, it forces migration because people aren’t going to sit around and just starve to death. They’re going to go somewhere to find food. So it hits the earth and our countries in more than one way.
DIANA RUIZ: Yeah. It increases the conversion of more land for agricultural use. And the issue raised around soils, it just underscores the importance that forests play in regulating our climate, as forests are a safety net for humans and for all living beings. Forests breathe in carbon. They’re able to absorb carbon. They end up regulating our atmosphere. And there’s some forests that are very carbon-rich; for example, peatland forest. And peatland forests are an ecosystem that is being threatened by palm oil plantations.
And you see the similar situation in Brazil with the savanna grasslands, known as the Cerrado, that also has rich, carbon rich soils that is also being cleared for cattle grazing. That’s part of the story of how we’re getting to desertification of these lands. Because essentially with forest areas that are very carbon-rich like peatlands, you’re essentially detonating a carbon bomb when you drain those peatlands, and then you clear that land for agricultural production.
MARC STEINER: What was also shocking on top of that and part of that is to raise cattle and to raise other livestock, that what I think I read in the report was that it was equivalent to releasing as much methane in the air as 600 million cars released in the air. Not methane, but—So that to me, those are shocking numbers. So the question becomes, the end of the report, they really tried to wrestle with what to do and how to mitigate this and how to change this.
But I must say that having read the last part of the report, it didn’t leave me in a really good mood, nor very sanguine about what the future might hold because what it will take to stop this is a major change in our culture and not just the corporate world, but our culture, the way we eat, the way we think what we need, that corporations keep pushing on us about what they think we need. This is real. And I think it’s something that we don’t understand, I think, the depth of danger we’re facing.
DIANA RUIZ: Yes. No, we agree completely. I think what the report underlines is the consequences and the urgency. I think everyone has a role to play. I think as consumers, we have a role not just in terms of shifting our consumption pattern, but we also have a role of putting pressure on these companies. Because as long as you are a company that is making multi-billion dollars off of snack foods where the key ingredient is palm oil, then you need to change course. And what changing course means is you need to change your business model so that you’re operating under environmental boundaries, that you’re taking the needs of the planet into consideration now because time is running out. It’s about stopping deforestation, but it’s also about forest restoration.
MARC STEINER: Right. I think it also clearly shows that there has to be some fairly radical measures on this planet if we’re going to save ourselves and the earth that we live on. And I think that’s part of what we’re going to be facing in all those elections taking place here in the United States, across the globe. And it’s increasingly a really serious matter. I deeply appreciate the work you do, by the way, at a Greenpeace, Diana Ruiz. Thank you so much for taking your time with us today. I look forward to talking to you a great deal more as we explore this report in greater depth.
DIANA RUIZ: All right. Thank you so much.
MARC STEINER: Thank you so much. And I’m Marc Steiner here for The Real News Network. Good to have you with us. Please let us know what you think. Give us some of your ideas. Take care.
If these people put the same energy and money into teaching people how to create fertile soil as they do into being Chicken Littles we'd all go to bed with smiles and full bellies.
MARC STEINER: Welcome to The Real News Network. I’m Marc Steiner. Good to have you all with.
The IPCC, which is the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, released a new report. The last report showed us the dangers of a 1.5 Celsius degree rise in temperatures, and what that could do to us, what it is doing to us. This new report, called “Climate Change and the Land,” shows the disastrous results of how two very complicated issues intersect to endanger our future. It focuses on how our use of the land contributes to climate change, and how climate change affects the land. As climate change makes farming more difficult, our methods of farming also devastate the wetlands, forests, rainforests, which exacerbates and increases the intensity of climate change itself. The end of the report offered some solutions, but we’ll explore what all that means in this conversation with our guest, Diana Ruiz.
Diana Ruiz is the Senior Palm Oil Campaigner for Greenpeace USA. She’s based in DC, and she’s leading the work to make zero deforestation in Indonesia a reality. No easy task. She has worked to make change and hold United States corporations accountable in countries including Indonesia, India, Peru and Ecuador. And Diana focuses on the range of issues that draw from industrial chemicals systems to pesticide regulations, climate mitigation and adaptation, which means that she’s a very busy woman and took time to talk to us today. And Diana Ruiz, welcome. Good to have you with us.
DIANA RUIZ: Yeah. Thank you for having me.
MARC STEINER: So let me begin by showing this clip that actually from the IPCC report itself, when they offered the report, and this is one of the co-chair’s report, giving her overview of what the report is.
VALERIE MASSON-DELMOTE, IPCC CO-CHAIR: The way we produce food and what we eat contributes to the loss of natural ecosystems and declining biodiversity. When land is degraded, it reduces the soil’s ability to take up carbon, and this exacerbates climate change. In turn, climate change exacerbates land degradation in many different ways. Today, 500 million people live in areas that’s experienced desertification. People living in already degraded or desertified areas are increasingly negatively affected by climate change.
MARC STEINER: So that was the Co-chair of the IPCC. And so let’s talk a bit about what she was saying. This was the overarching look at the report because it does something that I think that has been very hard to do. I understand the report had over 170 people in the 7,000 research projects they put together to come up with this report. But showing the interaction between the earth itself and climate change and how they interact is something that most people have not yet really considered in terms of looking at what we face for the future.
DIANA RUIZ: Yes. The, the IPCC land report really exposes the reality facing the world’s forests, and how we use our land for key agricultural commodities that are used in everything we consume and also in beauty products. For example, palm oil is one of those key drivers of deforestation that is putting a lot of stress on lands, especially in Southeast Asia. And soy is another key agricultural commodity along with the production of meat and dairy.
MARC STEINER: One of the things—What you just said to me is one of the glaring pieces. On the one hand you have this report talking about palm oil production, and production that has nothing to do with eating or the food that we consume, but is completely corporate-driven in terms of what they’re trying to sell to the world like palm oil, devastating rain forests to build these giant plantations.
But even here in the United States, the report shows that, I think they said we had 591 million acres in cropland, but only one fifth of that land is used to grow crops that feed human beings. The rest are soy and corn for industrial use to feed livestock like pigs and cattle. So it really, in many ways, we can talk about the desperation of people and what they’re trying to farm around the world, but in many ways, this problem is being driven, it seems to me, by corporations, the need for profit, what to sell us.
DIANA RUIZ: Well, you bring up a good point when you look at the United States. What we’re seeing now is more of an increase and it’s not just the United States. You’re seeing it in Brazil. You’re seeing it in other parts of the world. But the intensity and the increase of, for example, soy and palm oil that is being produced to feed cattle or poultry as part feed, and it’s that part of that sick system of the way agricultural production for these types of commodities is aggressively converting land. We’re at a critical point where we face a limited amount of land. That is having huge implications on the security of the future of the production of food.
MARC STEINER: I mean, so not only does the deforestation of our planet to create these plantations create greater pollution because of the methane and everything else that it releases. And when you destroy wetlands, I was surprised to see how much more in gigatons that it releases in the atmosphere, on top of what’s happening with our fossil fuels to get us from place to place. That’s something else that I think don’t really put their hands around yet – is the extent to which how we farm and what we farm actually does contribute to the pollution that we’re facing.
DIANA RUIZ: Yeah, absolutely. Agriculture is one of the… It is the leading driver of deforestation together with forestry and other land use. It represents 23% of human greenhouse gas emissions.
MARC STEINER: So the question is—Well, let’s take a look. This is an interesting clip. This has to do with soil devastation, and that came out this report. This is a British scientist and we’ll watch what she has to say.
KAREN JOHNSON, DURHAM UNIVERSITY: Life is at risk ultimately and that’s because all the things that we take for granted, resources that are more at the top of people’s minds like water and air, healthy air, et cetera, are related to healthy soils. Unfortunately, because we’ve not been looking after soils, we’ve been taking out more than we’ve been putting in. But if we year on year don’t return 30% of all organic matter that we take out of the soil, we don’t return it to the soil, then we see soil degradation because that organic matter is the glue that holds the little bits of rock, the minerals together.
MARC STEINER: So, and that was Sarah Johnson—Karen Johnson, excuse me, who’s professor of environmental engineering. But so what she describes here has a couple of – really attacks things in a couple of ways. I want you to comment on this. One has to do with what they’re doing to the soil itself, and what that’s releasing into the atmosphere, but also destroying the soil so we can’t grow things. But B, one of the things that side bars all this, and a major one, it forces migration because people aren’t going to sit around and just starve to death. They’re going to go somewhere to find food. So it hits the earth and our countries in more than one way.
DIANA RUIZ: Yeah. It increases the conversion of more land for agricultural use. And the issue raised around soils, it just underscores the importance that forests play in regulating our climate, as forests are a safety net for humans and for all living beings. Forests breathe in carbon. They’re able to absorb carbon. They end up regulating our atmosphere. And there’s some forests that are very carbon-rich; for example, peatland forest. And peatland forests are an ecosystem that is being threatened by palm oil plantations.
And you see the similar situation in Brazil with the savanna grasslands, known as the Cerrado, that also has rich, carbon rich soils that is also being cleared for cattle grazing. That’s part of the story of how we’re getting to desertification of these lands. Because essentially with forest areas that are very carbon-rich like peatlands, you’re essentially detonating a carbon bomb when you drain those peatlands, and then you clear that land for agricultural production.
MARC STEINER: What was also shocking on top of that and part of that is to raise cattle and to raise other livestock, that what I think I read in the report was that it was equivalent to releasing as much methane in the air as 600 million cars released in the air. Not methane, but—So that to me, those are shocking numbers. So the question becomes, the end of the report, they really tried to wrestle with what to do and how to mitigate this and how to change this.
But I must say that having read the last part of the report, it didn’t leave me in a really good mood, nor very sanguine about what the future might hold because what it will take to stop this is a major change in our culture and not just the corporate world, but our culture, the way we eat, the way we think what we need, that corporations keep pushing on us about what they think we need. This is real. And I think it’s something that we don’t understand, I think, the depth of danger we’re facing.
DIANA RUIZ: Yes. No, we agree completely. I think what the report underlines is the consequences and the urgency. I think everyone has a role to play. I think as consumers, we have a role not just in terms of shifting our consumption pattern, but we also have a role of putting pressure on these companies. Because as long as you are a company that is making multi-billion dollars off of snack foods where the key ingredient is palm oil, then you need to change course. And what changing course means is you need to change your business model so that you’re operating under environmental boundaries, that you’re taking the needs of the planet into consideration now because time is running out. It’s about stopping deforestation, but it’s also about forest restoration.
MARC STEINER: Right. I think it also clearly shows that there has to be some fairly radical measures on this planet if we’re going to save ourselves and the earth that we live on. And I think that’s part of what we’re going to be facing in all those elections taking place here in the United States, across the globe. And it’s increasingly a really serious matter. I deeply appreciate the work you do, by the way, at a Greenpeace, Diana Ruiz. Thank you so much for taking your time with us today. I look forward to talking to you a great deal more as we explore this report in greater depth.
DIANA RUIZ: All right. Thank you so much.
MARC STEINER: Thank you so much. And I’m Marc Steiner here for The Real News Network. Good to have you with us. Please let us know what you think. Give us some of your ideas. Take care.
Apparently bio-char and soil inoculation are tightly held farming secrets. Even the stupidest of hippies with black thumbs could grow stellar protein crops and kick off a continuous producing, low maintenance biome that would sequester CO2.
Stupid hippies.
Stupid hippies.
NO! Deficits are the result of MAN'S greed and stupidity, not to mention incompetence. Mother Nature is more concerned with long term trends and doesn't get into a flap over day to day anomalies!
She also doesn't stick her nose into money matters!
Noe...but she does have evolution as a back up tool.
BTW. re carbs and fiber are at the heart of causing the diabetic and heart disease epidemics ( and a huge slew of the cancer too it looks like) that we have going on at the moment, which is destroying the health care system in Kannada, so these genocidal green effe tards are going to have to rethink their whoe phill -o - sophy as this becomes common knowledge to the dying tax payers.
Some DRs "of the pill book", like "climate change scientists for grant money", are not going to like the consequences of their educational lapses when it all comes out.
BTW. re carbs and fiber are at the heart of causing the diabetic and heart disease epidemics ( and a huge slew of the cancer too it looks like) that we have going on at the moment, which is destroying the health care system in Kannada, so these genocidal green effe tards are going to have to rethink their whoe phill -o - sophy as this becomes common knowledge to the dying tax payers.
Some DRs "of the pill book", like "climate change scientists for grant money", are not going to like the consequences of their educational lapses when it all comes out.
Your pal UNtruedoh! said deficits will fix themselves.
But of course, everyone knows he is a total idiot. Climate will do that. It has for the last 4.5 billion years. Budgets will not.
Noe...but she does have evolution as a back up tool.
BTW. re carbs and fiber are at the heart of causing the diabetic and heart disease epidemics ( and a huge slew of the cancer too it looks like) we have going on at the moment which is destroying the health care system in Kannada, so these genocidal green effe tards are going to have to rethink their whoe phill -o - sophy as this becomes common knowledge to the dying tax payers.
Some Drs"of the pill book", like "climate change scientists for grant money", are not going to like the consequences of their educational lapses when it all comes out.
Just stick to a balanced diet...………………...it's worked for years!
There no "Mother Nature". Its all out competition for all life to survive.NO! Deficits are the result of MAN'S greed and stupidity, not to mention incompetence. Mother Nature is more concerned with long term trends and doesn't get into a flap over day to day anomalies!
Global heating made Hurricane Dorian bigger, wetter – and more deadly
https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2019/sep/04/climate-crisis-hurricane-dorian-floods-bahamas
Complete drivel.
https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2019/sep/04/climate-crisis-hurricane-dorian-floods-bahamas
Complete drivel.
