See Comments down arrow

Climate change drank my Prosecco

03 Apr 2024 | OP ED Watch

All the food you love will soon be gone due to climate change or, possibly, self-inflicted climate paranoia. According to Lovefood, the latest victim of the climate cult spreading to every corner of society that once brought simple joy and peace, “There’s nothing like a chilled glass of Prosecco to help you unwind after a busy day, but scientists have warned that the future of the crowd-pleasing fizz – as well as some of the world’s most celebrated wines – is at risk due to climate change.” In fact everything is going to die including coffee, almonds, blueberries, broccoli, honey (“another product that may soon cease to exist”), all other wine (“A rise of 4°C (7.2°F), meanwhile, could result in a shocking 85% reduction”), avocado and, well, check for yourself. Salmon, maple syrup, blah blah blah and yes, oranges, chocolate, pasta and Tabasco sauce. Not on the list: poison ivy, sumpweed, thistles, skunk cabbage, anything disgusting or harmful. Well, except tofu. So the alarmists won’t actually have to make us give up food we like. It will all die from climate change anyway.

Just as well, according to Espresso, a publication not devoted to fine coffee. Their list of “20 climate-damaging foods” kicks off with bananas. Then beef, of course. “According to CNN, beef is the “most climate-damaging of all foods,” producing 26.5 kg of CO2 emissions per kilogram of meat.” Lamb is a nightmare too. Butter must go, and shellfish:

“While cows and sheep top the CO2 charts with their methane emissions, flatulent shellfish are also on the hook for releasing large amounts of GHGs, producing 11.7 kg of CO2 per kilogram of food”.

Once again we ask whether they really think “the climate” is so fragile shrimp with gas will destroy it, and if so how it survived the Brontosaurus. They also try to get us off cheese by including, as with the shrimp, an incredibly appetizing photo. You can pretty much make up the list for yourself. Think what you’d like to order, and don’t. No asparagus. No pork. On the plus side, they say if you must eat chocolate, and you shouldn’t, at least avoid milk chocolate. OK. (And they pillory almond milk, while saying real milk is even worse.) Avocadoes are also bad, so probably it’s lucky they’re going to die out because we grew so many. And sugar is out. So basically have anything you like, except food. Not even rice:

“Rice is an important staple crop for more than half of the world’s population, but growing rice produces the potent greenhouse gas methane, contributing roughly 1.5 per cent of total global GHG emissions”.

Euronews also thinks we’d better stop eating, since “According to UN estimates though, one third of all human-caused greenhouse gas emissions (GHGs) come from the global food system.” And they have some great plans like getting farmers to glean the last residual bits of a crop that aren’t worth gathering. Also regenerative farming, which we do support. And the “One Health movement” that “is bringing human and animal health together.” And meat grown in a lab or a factory. And recognizing that “animals experience pain, suffering and joy” in case you never had a pet (other than, say, a turtle, since anyone who ever saw a dog wag its tail presumably twigged to canine joy). And finally, “Activists are energising the fight for food justice”. Oh great. Let them eat politics.

Just in case, the Daily Digest lists “a few options to reduce your food carbon footprint” starting, alas, with the bananas that are also about to go according to Lovefood. And they do kindly concede “No need to go vegan”. We just have to eat tofu. If there still is any. Oh, and “Replacing some of the meat we eat with plant proteins can reduce our food-related carbon footprint by 20%”. So not necessarily vegan but vegan if necessary.

Then we see someone about to chomp into a rather skinny cheeseburger, and get tut-tutted: “A 2019 report published in the medical journal The Lancet showed that some people eat much more meat than needed, particularly in the US, Europe, and Australia.” Amazing. For centuries the dream was that we could finally get meat. Henri IV of France (reigned 1589-1610), aka Henri de Navarre, famously dreamed of this degree of plenty: “I want there to be no peasant in my realm so poor that he will not have a chicken in his pot every Sunday” while Sir John Fortescue, urging patriotism on his fellow Britons while in exile with Henry VI of England, reminded them that the peasants of France, Italy and Germany:

“eat herbs: and thou Beef and Mutton. They roots: and thou butter, cheese, and eggs. They drink commonly water: and thou good ale and beer. They go from the market with a salad: and thou with good flesh fill thy wallet.”

He also commented that the English were free and prosperous so the unfortunate relentlessly taxed Europeans “pay till their bones rattle in their skin: and thou layest up for thy son and heir.” Not any more, apparently.

Instead, having been told we need not go vegan, “Vegan choices are much simpler than many believe: some dishes are already regular in American diets, like avocado toast or PB&Js.” But if we’re not virtuous enough, we may eat fish. Even farmed fish. And that Sunday chicken. Cage-free, mind you (and in this case we say rightly so). You can even have an egg, because now instead of ruining our dining pleasure by counting calories or thinking cholesterol makes them white ovals of death, we obsess that “eggs emit 2.1 kg of CO2 per 50 grams of protein” whereas those naughty cows allegedly give off 17.7 kg per 50 grams, a war-ration portion anyway we might note. This number is totally different from the one in Espresso but it’s the mathiness that counts, not the math.

Oh, and speaking of rations and the depressing math they involve, Euronews cites the party animals at Greenpeace that “everyone in the EU should be eating no more than 300g of meat per week by 2050 – that’s the equivalent of two hamburgers per week. The EU average is currently a whopping 1.58kg.” Boo prosperity. Boo tasty meals. Long live a small dish of rice.

The killjoy spirit is alive and well. Unlike the actually thinking about what you’re saying spirit. Hence the Daily Digest piece insists that:

“Fruits and vegetables have a significantly lower carbon footprint than meats and animal products, so they are always a better choice.”

Always? You just said we could eat fish, chicken and eggs and didn’t have to go vegan, and now you say we should always choose fruits and vegetables? Is it even possible to have a healthy balanced diet with just those? And what about the occasional celebratory meal?

Finally, and please make it stop:

“Eating locally sourced products can solve that problem, but you must combine that with choosing seasonally to avoid plants grown in a heated greenhouse.”

Boo greenhouses. Bad greenhouse effect. Whatever it is. And what if they’re heated with a heat pump? Or green hydrogen?

Whatever. The main point is not to have any fun, since:

“In any case, diet is only a part of our carbon footprint. If many make changes, it might add up to some reduction, but the impact of our choices is not strong enough to solve the climate crisis.”

So fire up the barbie and virtue-signal in the voting booth:

“You can’t solve the problem by changing your diet, but you can do it by voting. According to the UN and the New York Times, policy changes have a far more significant impact than individual choices.”

If they said it, it must be true. And that way instead of having to give up food, we can get politicians to take it away from us. Though not probably themselves. O Brave New World, that has such dietary restrictions in it.

6 comments on “Climate change drank my Prosecco”

  1. Last paragraph is key.The pols and elites telling the unwashed masses to give up meat and protein,but not them.Ditto I suppose for driving a private
    car,or taking a vacation.

  2. Slightly off-topic, but the mention of poison ivy as one of the plants that are apparently immune to climate change reminds me of the problem I had with poison ivy a few years ago. Not only will poison ivy give painful rashes and blisters upon contact, it is very difficult as a gardener to get rid of it. However, I found out by accident a way of doing this - plant lily of the valley! In a few years it will crowd out and ultimately smother poison ivy.
    A word of warning. While it has a beautiful scent, all parts of lily of the valley are poisonous. However, it doesn't produce contact rashes or blisters.

  3. "your freedom and a dead world or, our control of , well, everything, but salvation for the planet - vote for salvation! the science is paid for (by us) and therefore settled."

  4. The quote above, “Rice is an important staple crop for more than half of the world’s population, but growing rice produces the potent greenhouse gas methane,
    contributing roughly 1.5 per cent of total global GHG emissions”.
    WOW! How could methane from growing rice contribute roughly 1.5% of total global GHG emissions, when methane from all sources makes up less than 1% of the total global GHG emissions?

  5. Mike G Is absolutely right. It is time to quote HL Mencken once again:
    "The whole aim of practical politics is to keep the populace alarmed (and hence clamorous to be led to safety) by menacing it with an endless series of hobgoblins, all of them imaginary."

  6. Patrick Hunt, oh Patrick, not facts again. You are exposing yourself as thinking person, not fit for political party.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *