Eight years ago ABC News said Hillary was ahead of Trump by 12%. Now they say Kamala is ahead of Trump by 4%. “Hillary Clinton has a 12-point lead over Donald Trump and has reached 50% support nationally among likely … Continue reading →
via Real Climate Science
October 27, 2024 at 10:51AM
By Paul Homewood
h/t Paul Kolk
Britain must cut its meat and dairy consumption by up to 50pc to meet the latest net zero targets, the Government’s climate watchdog has said.
The Climate Change Committee said in an ideal scenario, meat and dairy consumption should halve by 2050 and products be substituted with plant-based options.
The proposals are part of new net zero targets that have been recommended to Ed Miliband, the Energy Secretary.
In a letter to Mr Miliband, the committee said the Government must cut CO2 emissions by 81pc by 2035 when compared to the benchmark year of 1990. This would amount to a reduction of 200m tonnes from the current level of 384m tonnes.
Piers Forster, the CCC’s chairman, said persuading British consumers to change their diets would play a key role in achieving such massive cuts.
Mr Forster did not specify how the UK could reduce meat eating but options could include reducing subsidies for livestock, taxing meat products and a clampdown by regulators on advertising.
The committee has urged the Government to cut livestock numbers, especially sheep and cattle, because they argue the methane produced by these animals is a key cause of climate change..
The UK has just under 10m cattle and calves plus around 32m sheep and lambs.
David Handley of Farmers for Action, who keeps 500 sheep and 100 cattle on his Monmouthshire farm, said: “The amounts of methane produced by farming are tiny compared with the emissions from transport and other sectors.
“But these rules and regulations are devastating the sector along with the UK’s ability to produce its own food.”
.
Do they really think that people are so concerned about Net Zero that they will give up meat?
Of course, we all know that when they say “persuade”, they really mean “compel”.
In their zealotry, they don’t seem to care about the effect their policy will have on the rural economy. In England alone, livestock and dairy farms employ more than 120,000 people, and meat production is valued at £9bn a year, according to DEFRA.
Industry estimates suggest that you can triple the number of employees, when indirect jobs and jobs in the meat processing industry are added in.
Worse still, the rural economy in some parts of the country could be wiped out if livestock and dairy farming is ended. Shops, pubs , garages and other local businesses could not survive such a catastrophe.
To even contemplate such an outcome would be thoroughly reckless. And this is why Piers Forster, climate academic, is totally unfit to be in charge of climate decision making.
And as is ever the case, while we are trying to cut our meat consumption, the rest of the world eats more every year. Our consumption is barely 1% of the world’s.
https://www.fao.org/faostat/en/#compare
None of that matters to Piers Forster though. All he cares about is the UK’s Net Zero targets.
via NOT A LOT OF PEOPLE KNOW THAT
October 27, 2024 at 08:40AM
Commentary from Anthony Watts and Friends:
Our second climate news item is from a wonderfully titled media outlet called motor biscuit: Electric truck fire burns down brand new German fire station. The fire station in Stadtallendorf is really new, in fact they opened its bay doors less than one year ago to accommodate 10 fire engines and many firefighters. However a tragic fire destroyed the the fire station despite its fire firefighting purposes. According to Euro News the fire originated with quote an emergency vehicle belonging to the fire department which contained lithium ion batteries and an external power connection. Unfortunately the electric emergencies vehicle blaze destroyed at least 10 fire truck models and caused around 25 million euros in damage.
Now firefighters’ woes and electric vehicles aren’t a new phenomenon. Departments in the United States have different tactics for battling EV battery fires. Ideally First Responders can suppress EV fires with mass quantities of water. However some firefighters claim that depending on the circumstances it’s best to cordon off the area and allow the EV to burn and eventually burn itself out.
Well, allowing a fire to burn itself out in this case took out 10 useful life-saving fire trucks and caused 25 million Euros in damage. Where where to start really with the idiocy of this particular story? For one thing, with all we know about fires from these things, having an EV fire truck and having it plugged into your station. And then I guess firefighters just think, well we’re firefighters so we’re immune, so no fire alarms, no fire suppression system. We don’t need fire alarms, we have fire experts right there exactly with badges. So the first truck goes up in flames. Are the other trucks all just sort of compacted around it? Were none of them far enough away to go over and drive them out of the garage as a as a brave firefighter? Was nobody in the firehouse despite the fact that all the trucks were there?
So you’ve got the error with no smoke alarms evidently no fire suppression system or at least not one geared to fight electric vehicle fires, which should tell you something right there. You have plugged an EV vehicle indoors in closed space next to vehicles that I presume have diesel in them. It’s a Murphy’s disaster waiting to happen. As I’m fond of saying, and it’s very apt in this case: the stupid it really burns.
I would like to think that the first time someone dies because of an elect vehicle fire and it happens multiple times again, the consumer product safety commission gets involved and says: you know what these aren’t safe on the roads these aren’t safe in your house. It’s time to withdraw them until we fix this problem.
But I I would be wrong about that. Either people are that stupid or they’re just into the climate scare narrative and the need to do something even if it kills your neighbors or yourself. You know in the 1980s, the consumer product safety commission banned lawn darts pretty quickly because throwing lawn darts had killed a few people. But ebikes for example have killed a lot more, just in New York City alone killed a bunch and they’re still on the market.
via Science Matters
October 27, 2024 at 08:08AM
