“Conversation.” Is that really what they want?

Another day, another megalomaniac doing everything in his power to tell people what to do:

James Cameron and wife to launch campaign advocating sustainable plant-only based diet

Film director James Cameron and his wife, Suzy Amis Cameron, an actor and model, are planning a global campaign to persuade people to move towards a plant-only diet (where no animals or animal products are consumed) in order to sharply reduce global carbon emissions and improve their health.

I’d ask who is this rich, despicable fool to lecture me on what is “sustainable,” but that would miss the point. He has the money and the power of the mike, so he gets to lecture the rest of us peons, whether we are in the mood or not.

We are addicts whose addiction is harming the environment, and we should be ashamed!

“We have an addiction to consuming animal products and it’s hurting our environment. One simple thing that everyone can do, starting right now, is to reduce or eliminate the consumption of animal products because of the amount of water that it takes to produce a gallon of milk or a hamburger, the amount of land that is being cleared and all of the biodiversity being lost just to either grow grain to feed the animals or for grazing. About a pound of meat equals one acre of the rainforest.”

(Emphasis added.)

Hey, at that rate, the rainforests were wiped out long ago. That’s because there are only 36,800,00,000 acres in the world, and only a small percentage of that is rainforest acreage. Estimates vary, but according to environmentalists, rainforests account for anywhere from 75 million acres to 1.2 billion acres.

And considering that 52 billion lbs. of meat are consumed in the U.S. alone, if one pound of meat equals one acre of rainforest, then if you do the math, the rainforests are long, long gone.

How do these people get away with such abject fraud?

The fact is, they do, and they are hell-bent on politicizing what everyone eats, to the point where the morons who listen to them and imagine they are saving the world will be scolding everyone who gets within earshot.

Amis Cameron says momentum is starting to build around highlighting the issue and says she is heartened by recent studies in the UK showing the importance of reducing meat consumption. Last week the journal Climatic Change published a major study in the UK which found the dietary greenhouse gas emissions of meat eaters were more than twice as high as for vegans.

She is highly critical of major corporations for spreading misinformation and for advertising unhealthy foods and says those companies that fail to act will come under increasing pressure from customers. “We’re constantly sent information about being consumers, about unhealthy foods to eat,” she says. “We’re bombarded by big corporations with messages that we have to consume more, thereby creating more trash. We’re sent commercials about ridiculously unhealthy foods that not only hurt our bodies but hurt the planet and drive up prices for healthcare.”

The huge success of her husband’s film Avatar, a film with a strong environmental thrust, shows that it is possible to change people’s awareness about ecological issues, says Amis Cameron, and the couple believe it is imperative that they put their influence to good effect.

“We all know how powerful film can be and people’s consciousness was certainly tapped into in Avatar, the most successful film in the history of the world,” she says. “It started a big conversation around the environment. I think people are afraid of starting conversations and sometimes think it’s better just to leave that elephant in the room and tiptoe around it. That’s certainly not Jim’s style and it’s certainly not my style, and it’s not our style together. Even if we’re going before our time, we’re not afraid to start a conversation.

That word.

Conversation?

Give me a break. What they want is anything but that. It’s simply code language for telling people what to do, insulting those who disagree, and if possible using armed force to get their way.


Posted

in

by

Tags:

Comments

9 responses to ““Conversation.” Is that really what they want?”

  1. […] “Conversation.” Is that really what they want?. […]

  2. Bob Smith Avatar
    Bob Smith

    What are people who must eat low-carb diets (diabetics) supposed to do? Plant-based diets are high-carb diets.

  3. c andrew Avatar
    c andrew

    Hi Bob,
    What’s more important? The health of a view evolutionarily disadvantaged humans in a privileged existence? Or the FATE OF THE WORLD ITSELF! {End Sarc directed at James Cameron}

    Cameron’s movies are best when his moralizing asshole tendencies are reined in by an editor. Just compare his director’s cuts with the theatrical releases.

    Maybe what James and Amis really need are real-life editors…

    “And Cut! Okay James, let’s run that again, this time, let’s pull back on the condescension and sanctimony, okay? A little less hubris and hypocrisy is always a plus too. Here, better yet, let’s use some duct tape. Yes, much better. Alright, ACTION!”

    Credit to James Gaffigan for the “And Cut!” motif.

  4. c andrew Avatar
    c andrew

    Geeze, View in the first line should actually be few. I dunno, does that pronunciation mis-step make me German or Russian?

  5. Randy Avatar
    Randy

    There’s nothing the like the egos of the Hollywood jet set.

  6. Simon Avatar

    So meat eaters emit twice as much plant food as plant eaters.

    You would think “Greens” would say “hurrah!”. But no. They firmly believe that CO2 warms the planet.

    Given the water vapor in the atmosphere CO2 has zero effect. That is because water vapor and CO2 absorb and emit in the same bands with water vapor covering more bands.

    In any case the CO2 bands are saturated. Adding more CO2 to the atmosphere will change nothing.

    The science is slowly closing in on those frauds.

  7. Anonymous Avatar
    Anonymous

    It is conservative to conserve, to choose cautiously against unforeseen possibilities.

    Of course, the most important thing we have to conserve is our culture, and that is the very thing that people who talk about “conservation” are usually trying to dismantle and destroy.

  8. Mark Avatar
    Mark

    These folks talking about how much water raising meat consumes are also encouraging burning corn in our gas tanks. How much water does it take to produce a gallon of ethanol?

  9. Anonymous Avatar
    Anonymous

    Mark: it takes more energy to make a gallon of ethanol than you get from burning it, regardless of what shiny gewgaws are being sold to the newsmedia and the EPA by “green energy” con artists.

    As they say on a Usenet newsgroup called sci.chem, “never give money to someone who promises that he can violate the Second Law of Thermodynamics.”

    It requires energy input of 131,000 BTU to produce one gallon of ethanol by the most efficient methods currently known. When you burn that gallon of ethanol you get back 77,000 BTU–a net loss of 70%. This figure comes from Professor David Pimentel of Cornell University:

    http://www.news.cornell.edu/releases/Aug01/corn-basedethanol.hrs.html

    Ethanol is a fuel is a non-starter. Even in Brazil, where the government uses convicts as slave labor for agricultural and industrial production of ethanol from sugarcane, so the labor costs are essentially nil, it’s still a net energy and money sink. The laws of thermodynamics don’t care whether you mean well or whether you think “but someone should DOOOOOOOOOOOOO something.”

    As Alan Schwartz put it,

    “Photosynthesis is very optimistically equivalent to producing 15 bbl/day-mile^2 of diesel fuel and ignoring all energy inputs.

    http://www.hort.purdue.edu/newcrop/duke_energy/Saccharum_officinarum.html

    Fat is so cheap that it makes biodiesel only costing two or three times as much as the real thing. If there were any demand for fat as fuel the price would skyrocket, as waste fat is well used as it is*.

    The most efficient uses of bio fuel burn corn in a stove designed to burn wood pellets. Heating with corn at $2.50 a bushel is the same as using $(US)0.64/gallon propane. The best deal is to burn the anhydrous ammonia and not bother planting the corn. You must have a way to condense the exhaust and store the nitric acid for resale, and you have to keep it burning so it produces nitric acid and not merely nitrogen oxides. That one makes money**.”

    *the current “biodiesel” scheme is based on using no-longer-usable deep-fryer oil from the restaurant industry as a feedstock to be broken down for fuel. It is based on the very mistaken idea that this is just a waste product that would otherwise end up in garbage dumps. In fact old deep fryer oil is already in tremendous industrial demand and is a valuable industrial commodity, used to manufacture soap, shampoo, and synthetic detergents. Before anyone had the “biodiesel” idea there was already a very hungry seller’s market for every gram that the US food service industry can produce.

    **nitric acid is another extremely valuable industrial commodity, vital for a thousand and one different industrial chemical processes.