It is late and I haven’t much time.
It seems that some individual, alleged to be speaking for the UN, has demanded that red meat should be taxed specially. Do we have to accept that that person speaks for the whole UN? In fact, it is reasonable to ask who that person speaks for. Certainly, the justification for that tax is premised upon animals farting and causing runaway global warming.
One would think that the proposal would would be laughed at since it makes no sense. The animals that we eat are herbivores. They eat grass and turn it into meat. Even those animals which are fed with grain are eating the produce of plants. So the cycle, in big, general terms, is that grass absorbs CO2 and emits O; cows and sheep eat the grass, turn it into meat, and, in the process, fart a lot and shit a lot. What they fart and shit came from the grass that they ate, thus, they only emit what they have absorbed. Do cows emit methane? Then the methane must have been in the grass that they ate. Does grass absorb methane? No one says that grass does not – a missing step in the process.
Vast numbers of animals have existed on this planet for eons, and their activities have been neutral during all that time – the chemicals that they absorb, they emit, one way or another. Until we eat them. At that point, our own metabolisms return what we absorb to the earth and the atmosphere.
But these ‘authorities’ in the UN want TAXATION. Thus, as is obvious to any one with a single brain-cell, the people most to be affected are those with the least ability to pay. I thought that I could not re-find the link about this latest UN persecution of the poorest people, but I have found it( H/T Joe L at:
Here is another if you can be bothered:
But note that the Zealots want red meat to be taxed at the production stage. I suppose that must mean at the wholesale stage. It is the Tobacco Template. It is intended to be a form of duty or excise tax, just like tobacco, alcohol and petrol.
But who are these ‘experts’ and collaborators who are driving these ideas? No one knows. They seem to be ‘professors’ and ‘doctors’ in universities. Do these people actual teach subjects, and to what extent is their teaching ideological and political?
There is an imperative that Politicians must must ensure that education is not political or ideological. Even ‘political studies’ must be objective.
It is hard to know what ‘expertise’ is needed for a politician to be good at his job. I do not know, but it seems to me that the worst possible people to be politicians are the fruits of academia and the medical profession. Practising lawyers, practising builders, practising doctors, practising teachers, etc, should be OK. But academics must always be suspect. Such people always want persecution.