TonyfromOz prefaces …..
Have you ever wondered why it is that when it comes to this Climate Change debate, every crackpot idea that gets speculated upon as thought bubbles suddenly becomes what we are told is now ‘real’ science. Get in for your lamb roast real soon before those Global Warming scammers take it off the menu. I posted an article in October of last year on just this subject when Australia was in the process of trying to introduce Carbon Cap and Trade legislation.
“Changing our lifestyles, including our diets, is going to be one of the crucial elements in cutting carbon emissions,” says David Kennedy, the UK’s chief executive of the Committee on Climate Change.
Apparently that includes giving up carbon-intensive food:
Government advisers are developing menus to combat climate change by cutting out “high carbon” food such as meat from sheep, whose burping poses a serious threat to the environment.
A government-sponsored study into greenhouse gases found that producing 2.2lb of lamb released the equivalent of 37lb of carbon dioxide.
The problem is because sheep burp so much methane, a potent greenhouse gas. Cows are only slightly better behaved. The production of 2.2lb of beef releases methane equivalent to 35lb of CO2 Tomatoes, most of which are grown in heated glasshouses, are the most “carbon-intensive” vegetable, each 2.2lb generating more than 20lb of CO2 Potatoes, in contrast, release only about 1lb of CO2 for each 2.2lb of food. The figures are similar for most other native fruit and vegetables.
Alcoholic drinks are another significant contributory factor, with the growing and processing of crops such as hops and malt into beer and whisky helping to generate 1.5% of the nation’s greenhouse gases. ”
Capping carbon dioxide is less about changing the environment and more about political elitists forcing people to change their behavior. If politicians are going to make businesses reduce carbon emissions through rationing, why not take it one socialist step further and ration carbon emissions per person. This way, politicians, actors and other elitists espousing the need for consumers to cut back on their lamb and beef consumption while they fly around in private jets and take a fleet of SUVs from one block to the next.
Global warming policy can sound pretty good one sound byte at a time for politicians trying to sell it as a costless way to save the environment. But as Americans learn more, they are buying it a lot less because they’re beginning to understand that a cap-and-trade program to reduce carbon dioxide emissions is nothing more than a regressive tax that will raise energy prices and cost Americans jobs – all for little, if any, environmental gain.
It is shaping up that if Congress passes any version of a global warming bill, just like the stimulus spending, it will come with large public dissent. According to a recent Rasmussen poll:
Just one-out-of-three voters (34%) now believe global warming is caused by human activity, the lowest finding yet in Rasmussen Reports national surveying. However, a plurality (48%) of the Political Class believes humans are to blame.
Forty-eight percent (48%) of all likely voters attribute climate change to long-term planetary trends, while seven percent (7%) blame some other reason. Eleven percent (11%) aren’t sure.
These numbers reflect a reversal from a year ago when 47% blamed human activity while 34% said long-term planetary trends.”
The public is holding up a stop sign but politicians appear eager to run through it without much thought or sincere consideration. For full analysis of the Waxman-Markey global warming legislation, visit The Heritage Foundation’s Cap and Trade Rapid Response page here.
Read more informative articles at Heritage – The Foundry