(Natural News) Now, it seems, the global warming police want to dictate what you eat.
According to international climate change scientists, if you eat meat, then you are part of the cause of global warming. These scientists want to control American farming practices and put limits on land use, grazing systems, and meat consumption, but they are not necessarily worried about anyone’s health.
They are worried about carbon dioxide emissions and how cattle grazing practices contribute to global warming. It doesn’t matter how responsibly grown the meat is, either. The new report finds that grass-fed animals burden the planet all the same, generating too many total greenhouse gas emissions.
On the subject of human health, grass-fed beef is generally more nutritious than feedlot beef. The animals consume higher amounts of antioxidants and phytonutrients from free-range grasses and herbs. They are allowed to roam freely and aren’t confined in cramped, disease-ridden conditions. Grass-fed animals are generally more resilient; less medicated, and therefore taste better.
Previous reports have shown that “grass-fed beef” helps remove carbon dioxide from the atmosphere, through their free-range grazing actions. Free range animals prevent the release of carbon dioxide emissions through ‘soil carbon sequestration’. However, Dr. Tara Garnett of the Food Climate Research Network at the University of Oxford and Cécile Godde at Australia’s national science agency make the case that even grass-fed cattle contribute to climate change. The team of international scientists is worried about ruminant animals specifically. They state that the animals’ farts contribute 80 percent of total livestock emission and account for 14.5 percent of human-related greenhouse gases. (Related: Scientists rush to save the planet with modified sheep farts.)
The report, Grazed and Confused? Ruminating on cattle, grazing systems, methane, nitrous oxide, the soil carbon sequestration question — and what it all means for greenhouse gas emissions admits that grass-fed animals boost the sequestration of carbon locally, but it says any circumstantial benefit is outweighed by the overall greenhouse gas emissions generated by the cattle.
Lead author Dr. Tara Garnett calls on countries with high meat production to cut back. The United Nations sustainable development goals could theoretically be used to implement the changes at the local level in the United States. Garnett says that if meat-eaters want to do something for the climate, they should forget about switching to grass-fed beef because it “is not a solution.”
This report concludes that grass-fed livestock are not a climate solution. Grazing livestock are net contributors to the climate problem, as are all livestock. Rising animal production and consumption, whatever the farming system and animal type, is causing damaging greenhouse gas release and contributing to changes in land use. Ultimately, if high consuming individuals and countries want to do something positive for the climate, maintaining their current consumption levels but simply switching to grass-fed beef is not a solution. Eating less meat, of all types, is.
The study calls for “grazing management” to offset between 20-60 percent of annual average emissions from the grass-fed only sector. They believe this will reduce overall livestock emissions by 4-11 percent and reduce annual human emissions by up to 1.6 percent. This agenda is being carried out through the Paris Accord global agreement on climate change. Their collective goal is to control the Earth’s temperature and limit global warming by 2-degrees Celsius.
Lead author Cécile Godde says the report “takes us a step further towards understanding what a sustainable food system looks like,” whether farmed animals fit in a sustainable food system, and which species, if any, are to be preferred.
As demand for healthier grass-fed beef rises, the global warming police are considering a crackdown on “unsustainable” farming practices around the world. Cow farts are keeping them from reaching their climate change goals. Their idea of micromanaging farmers across the world to control the Earth’s atmosphere is hideously arrogant.