Implementing the Global Meat Tax

by Lewis Loflin

December 6, 2008 Bristol: As thousands shiver in record cold in many parts of the world, and NASA had to revise their global warming claims down, "environment ministers from 187 nations" are meeting Poland to discuss regulating pig poop to prevent global warming.

It's about methane, the main component of natural gas and whose main source is swamps and wetlands. It's produced by the natural breakdown of organic waste in the environment. New Age and Eastern mystics for years have demanded people eat less meat, so why not link it to global warming? To quote,

"It's an area that's been largely overlooked," said Dr. Rajendra Pachauri, head of the Nobel Prize-winning United Nations Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change. He says people should eat less meat to control their carbon footprints. "We haven't come to grips with agricultural emissions."


Just who is Dr. Rajendra Pachauri? Turns out as usual he is not a climate scientist at all and has no expertise in any related field. According to Wiki,

Pachauri was educated at La Martiniere College in Lucknow and at the Indian Railways Institute of Mechanical and Electrical Engineering in Jamalpur, Bihar. He began his career with the Diesel Locomotive Works in Varanasi, where he held several managerial positions. Pachauri joined the North Carolina State University, Raleigh, where he obtained an MS in Industrial Engineering in 1972, a PhD in Industrial Engineering and a PhD in Economics...

So what does engineering locomotives and a PhD in Economics have to with any earth or climate science? Here is his real agenda; "He is a strict vegetarian, partly due to his beliefs as a Hindu, and partly because of the impact of meat-production on the environment." It's about his damned religious beliefs, not science.

Every time I check these environmental leaders out it's religion or politics, mostly religion. He shared a Nobel Prize with Al Gore, another religious mystic.

See Al Gore's Green Religion Exposed

And when did they start awarding the Nobel Prize to UN political organizations? If they can award prizes to terrorists, why not? Dr. Rajendra Pachauri is not a climate scientist and yes, the UN now wants to regulate and tax cow gas.

This is all part of the "cap and trade" industry that will net people like Al Gore and his company Generation Investment Management LLP millions. The UN couldn't pass up a potential bonanza and a reason for its continued existence.

Many followers of the 60s "counter-culture" generation of New Age religion and Eastern mysticism believe eating meat is evil. They have advocated for decades to reduce the consumption of red meat for religious reasons.

They, like a lot of other special interest groups, are riding the global warming bandwagon. The UN socialists gain another ally in their attempts to control another facet of civilization.



International regulation of everything people do is a socialist dream. To quote, "Of the more than 2,000 projects supported by the United Nations' "green" financing system intended to curb emissions, only 98 are in agriculture. There is no standardized green labeling system for meat, as there is for electric appliances and even fish." Who in the hell appointed the UN to control anything? To further quote the Times:

The trillions of farm animals around the world generate 18 percent of the emissions that are raising global temperatures (unproven), according to United Nations estimates, more even than from cars, buses and airplanes. But unlike other industries, like cement making and power, which are facing enormous political and regulatory pressure to get greener, large-scale farming is just beginning to come under scrutiny...

"I'm not sure that the system we have for livestock can be sustainable...(claims one UN hack)...the most attractive near-term solution is for everyone simply to "reduce meat consumption."

"The Lancet medical journal and the Food Ethics Council in Britain have supported his suggestion to eat less red meat to control global emissions, noting that Westerners eat more meat than is healthy anyway." No, it's not about science, it never is. It's about "ethics" as defined by radical special interests.

One solution the article goes into is heating up the poop to drive off methane, then burn it to generate power. They did this with a 3000 head pig farm in Holland, but didn't specify if they got government money to pay for it.

In my region of Southwest Virginia the grants and subsidies are often the real goal. Other scams include "methane capture" and inventing new feed that will make cows belch less methane. But that is what cows do to convert grass, so what else do they feed them grain? It's not cost effective, none of this is.

But now we come to the real goal. Proposals include forcing consumers to eat less meat by slapping a "sin tax" on pork and beef. To quote, "Of course for the environment it's better to eat beans than beef, but if you want to eat beef for New Year's, you'll know which beef is best to buy." You mean I can have my steak without the punitive fart tax?

There are a number of radical groups that believe eating meat is bad. But that won't slow anyone down.

(In) China, India and Brazil the consumption of red meat has risen 33 percent in the last decade...scientists are still trying to define the practical, low-carbon version of a slab of bacon or a hamburger.

Every step of producing meat creates emissions. Flatus and manure from animals contain not only methane, but also nitrous oxide, an even more potent warming agent. And meat requires energy for refrigeration as it moves from farm to market to home.

Producing meat in this ever-more crowded world requires creating new pastures and planting more land for imported feeds, particularly soy, instead of relying on local grazing.

That has contributed to the clearing of rain forests, particularly in South America, robbing the world of crucial "carbon sinks," the vast tracts of trees and vegetation that absorb carbon dioxide.

Producing a pound of beef creates 11 times as much greenhouse gas emission as a pound of chicken and 100 times more than a pound of carrots...

But there is opposition,

Meat producers have taken issue with the United Nations' estimate of livestock-related emissions, saying the figure is inflated because it includes the deforestation in the Amazon, a phenomenon that the Brazilian producers say might have occurred anyway. United Nations scientists defend their accounting.

With so much demand for meat, "you do slash rain forest...Soy cultivation has doubled in Brazil during the past decade, and more than half is used for animal feed."

But the other half goes to people. And what does rain forest, an object of near worship by environmentalists, has to do with New Zealand? But to quote, "Estimates of emissions from agriculture as a percentage of all emissions vary widely from country to country, but they are clearly over 50 percent in big agricultural and meat-producing countries like Brazil, Australia and New Zealand.

In the United States, agriculture accounted for just 7.4 percent of greenhouse gas emissions in 2006, according to the Environmental Protection Agency."

That assumes that global warming is even man-made, which like it or not is at best under dispute.

There's a suggestion to using "carbon cap-and-trade systems, which currently focus on heavy industries like cement making and power generation. Farms that produce more than their pre-set limit of emissions would have to buy permits from greener colleagues to pollute." That will make the eco-cultists a lot of money as people go hungry.

New Zealand recently announced that it would include agriculture in its new emissions trading scheme by 2013. (Now the payoff) To that end, the government is spending tens of millions of dollars financing research and projects like breeding cows that produce less gas and inventing feed that will make cows belch less methane, said Philip Gurnsey of the Environment Ministry. Others ask, "Indeed, one question that troubles green farmers is whether consumers will pay more for their sustainable meat.

"In the U.K., supermarkets are sometimes asking about green, but there's no global system yet," said Bent Claudi Lassen, chairman of the Danish Bacon and Meat Council, which supports green production. "We're worried that other countries not producing in a green way, like Brazil, could undercut us on price."

The idea with a global system is global control. People don't buy "green" unless forced to. It's not about farts.

ref. December 4, 2008 New York Times (extract)

Rajendra Pachauri Discredited

The Washington Times reports February 2, 2010:
The United Nations Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change is having its own scandal regarding a finding in its Nobel Peace Prize-winning 2007 report that glaciers in India were rapidly disappearing.

It is now revealed that this dramatic claim was based not on years of patient observation and research but anecdotes from a hiking magazine and a student's master's thesis.

IPCC Chairman Rajendra K. Pachauri knew about the erroneous information before December's Copenhagen climate summit but maintained the falsehood.

He even denounced a report from India that showed the glaciers were in far less jeopardy as "unsubstantiated research." Last month, Mr. Pachauri published a sexually explicit novel, further diminishing his professional reputation.

What does Al Gore say about the science behind global warming? "As it happens, the idea of social justice is inextricably linked in the Scriptures with ecology."