Canadian journalist Donna Laframboise. Former National Post & Toronto Star columnist, past vice president of the Canadian Civil Liberties Association.
Organizers of the Climate Assembly turned weak support for ‘less meat’ into a key finding. Climate bureaucrats are now exaggerating further.
There’s a strange new creature out there. Known as a Climate Assembly, it’s an elaborate fake – a process by which politicians, bureaucrats, and activists try to convince everyone that the public supports draconian climate measures (see my previous post).
Ben Pile, the author of a report about the UK’s recent Climate Assembly, has produced the above 8-minute video. It explains that, when the consumption of meat was discussed, the Climate Assembly was divided into smaller groups. Only 35 people – rather than the full complement of 108 – considered this matter.
Those 35 people listened to one-sided presentations about how red meat isn’t just bad for your health, it’s also bad for the planet. At 2:42 minutes into the video, you’ll hear academic Rosie Green, who specializes in “sustainable diets,” advising them:
We know that red and processed meat is associated with a number of health conditions. So it’s linked to heart disease, it’s linked to strokes, it’s linked to particular types of cancer, like bowel cancer, and it’s also linked to diabetes.
Later, these 35 people were asked to select four ideas (out of a longer list) they thought government should “bear in mind” when “making decisions about food, farming and land use.” Eating less meat was not a popular choice. Only 29% voted for it. This means it was supported by just 10 of those 35 people.
To reiterate: Most of the 108 members of the Climate Assembly were not asked about meat eating. Two thirds of those who were asked (25 out of 35 individuals) did not support reducing meat consumption as a means of fighting climate change. Only 10 individuals did so – a mere 9% of all Climate Assembly members.
Given this tepid level of support it’s astonishing to read, on page 20 of the massive final report, that eating less meat is a Climate Assembly “key recommendation.” It’s astonishing to further read:
Assembly members recommended…A change in diet to reduce meat and dairy consumption by between 20% and 40% – the assembly stressed the significance of education, saying these changes should be voluntary rather than compulsory;
Pardon me? How could 25 people not in favour of less meat, versus 10 people in favour, possibly translate into a general recommendation that milk and cheese consumption be cut nearly in half?
It gets worse, because distortions have a habit of growing ever more distorted, and exaggerations grow ever more exaggerated. At the 4:45 minute mark in the video, Mike Thompson, an official with the UK’s Climate Change Committee, shamelessly declares:
The Climate Assembly said they would be happy with a 20 to 40 per cent reduction in meat consumption. We’ve looked really carefully at the Climate Assembly’s recommendations…If you take the time to guide people through this, to explain why the changes are needed, to explain the sorts of things that need to happen, they’re really supportive of action. [bold added]
Wow. Just wow. Does climate change render us incapable of distinguishing truth from lies?
please support this blog
most of these researchers (11 votes to 3), believe no reliable evidence justifies telling adults to eat less red meat and less processed meat. As this commentary explains, nutritional research is typically “shaky.” Studies that identify a link between meat consumption and a particular disease usually show tiny increases in risk…To quote editor-in-chief Christine Laine, “the public should know we don’t have great information on diet.”
Some qualified experts, therefore, believe the evidence linking meat consumption to disease is dodgy. But members of the Climate Assembly weren’t given the whole story.