DOUGLAS V. GIBBS<---------->RADIO<---------->BOOKS<---------->CONSTITUTION <---------->CONTACT/FOLLOW <----------> DONATE

Saturday, November 28, 2015

Greenstremists Demand "Meat Tax"

by JASmius

Looks like the food Nazis are joining the "climate change" tag team:

A London-based think tank that supports slashing meat consumption is calling for the radical diet change to be "high on the list" of strategies studied by world leaders gathering in Paris next week to discuss global warming.

In its report, Chatham House says cutting down on meat-eating can prevent global warming by two degrees by the end of the century, declaring that the cultivation of animals is responsible for about 15% of the world's carbon emissions.

No pun intended, but bullshit!  Two bleeping degrees from cow farts?  Seriously?  Not to mention that it's global cooling we have to worry about.

And they're not going to take "BLEEP YOU!" for an answer, it seems:

The think tank is also recommending government interventions and initiatives to make meat eating less attractive....

That is not possible.  Not physically, not psychologically.  Just ask Arby's.....

....or Planned Parenthood.

....and Americans, who eat more meat than most people in other countries, will likely be a top target, Libertarian Republic reports.

Why do you think that is, by the way?  I'll tell you the overarching reason: because Americans have, until recent years, been the most affluent people on the planet, that's why, before the Obamunist onslaught of economic domestic terrorism that is culminating in Paris this next week.

Among the recommendations is a so-called carbon tax.

Of course.  Even though methane is one atom of carbon and FOUR atoms of hydrogen.  Why don't they call it a hydrogen tax?  After all, it worked out so well for the Hindenburg....,

“Interventions to change the relative prices of foods are likely to be among the most effective in changing consumption patterns,” the report notes, adding countries should aim "to increase the price of meat and other unsustainable products" through a carbon tax.

They're perfectly sustainable if you cultivate the animals you eat.  Have been for thousands of years.  What have these lunatics got against protein, for heaven's sake?

But they're not just proteinophobes; they also hate the poor:

“Which will be the first group of people to be harmed by these taxes?” asks Marlo Lewis Jr., a senior fellow at the Competitive Enterprise Institute, the Libertarian Republic reports. "It’s the poor obviously."

“A better-fed population is more productive, and a more productive population makes food more abundant and secure. The Chatham House proposal would break this virtuous cycle of progress at both ends."

And don't think that's any accident.  Because like all leftwingnuts, what the filthbags at Chatham House really hate is humanity itself - except for themselves, of course - and want modern human civilization wiped out entirely.

They're like a Michael Bloombergized version of the ecoterrorists in the late Tom Clancy's first Rainbow Six novel.

I thought hunger was supposed to be a serious problem around the world.  I also thought that meat was one of the four - or is it five now? - food groups.  Part of a balanced diet.  What are we all supposed to eat in meat's place?  Dirt?  Ramen?  Tofu?  Endless vats of Plomeek soup?  The Chatham House's shorts?

Ain't happening, "mates".  I want a nice, warm globe, piles of bacon for breakfast, quadruple Whoppers for lunch, and a nice, thick, juicy, teriyaki porterhouse for dinner each day, every day, for the rest of my mouth-watering life.  And a large majority of the "species" agrees with me.

Now hold still, assholes....

No comments: