Connect with us

News

The Green New Deal Will No Longer Have Meat on the Menu

Published

on

Democrat’s recently unveiled Green New Deal might get in the way of your favorite carnivorous treats.

Spearheaded by freshman Congresswoman Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez (D-NY) and Senator Ed Markey (D-Mass.), the Green New Deal is a government-directed plan to eliminate greenhouse gas emission through carbon taxes, confiscatory levels of taxation, and a myriad of other top-down schemes.

One of the ways the “enlightened” political class in DC wants to reduce greenhouse emissions is by cutting emissions from “farting cows”. In a section of the Green New Deal FAQ sheet that addresses the differences between reaching “100% clean and renewable” energy and “100% renewable” energy, Green New Deal advocates were quick to pin the blame on methane emissions coming from cattle. They conceded that they won’t be able to get to zero greenhouse emission because they aren’t sure that they’ll “be able to fully get rid of farting cows”.

Trending: Bezos-Linked Thinktank Official Calls for Michael Anton’s Execution for Exposing Anti-Trump Color Revolution

Naturally, groups like the National Cattlemen’s Beef Association (NCBA) have pushed back against these claims on cattle’s impact on greenhouse emissions. Colin Woodall, NCBA senior vice president of government affairs, chimed in on the matter:

take our poll - story continues below

Did Kyle Rittenhouse act in self defense?

  • VOTE NOW: Did Kyle Rittenhouse act in self defense when he shot three BLM rioters? 

  • This field is for validation purposes and should be left unchanged.
Completing this poll grants you access to Big League Politics updates free of charge. You may opt out at anytime. You also agree to this site's Privacy Policy and Terms of Use.

Despite all the progress we’ve made on the environmental front in recent decades, some policymakers still seem to think targeting U.S. beef producers and consumers will make a huge impact on global emissions.

Claims that cattle contribute significantly to global warming are dubious at best. The U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) estimates that direct greenhouse gas emissions coming from cattle and their manure are only 2 percent of U.S. greenhouse gas emissions.

Virginia Tech and USDA-ARS have also countered the livestock argument. Their research came to the conclusion that if all livestock were eliminated from production agriculture U.S. greenhouse gas emissions would only drop by 2.6 percent or 0.36 percent globally.

Blaming beef for increasing greenhouse emissions is not a novel concept.

The UN Food and Agricultural Organization (FAO) published Livestock’s Long in 2006, arguing that meat production contributed to 18 percent of all greenhouse-gas emissions.

However, such an assertion was challenged by Frank Mitloehner at the University of California at Davis. Mitloehner countered by claiming that the FAO’s original analysis yielded an “apples-and-oranges analogy that truly confused the issue” and led many people to believe that meat production produced a higher output of greenhouse emissions than transportation.

Sadly, Green New Deal proponents don’t care about facts and only care about policies that line up special interests’ pockets, while consolidating their own political power.

If that means taxing your juicy steak to oblivion, so be it.

Middle America’ s opinions and preferences are afterthoughts to control freak politicians.

News

Southern Baptist Convention Reverses Course on Name Change After BLP Reporting

They say they’re not changing their name.

Published

on

The Southern Baptist Convention has sought to dispel reporting from Big League Politics on the organization’s planned name change, arguing that the institution isn’t formally changing its name.

take our poll - story continues below

Did Kyle Rittenhouse act in self defense?

  • VOTE NOW: Did Kyle Rittenhouse act in self defense when he shot three BLM rioters? 

  • This field is for validation purposes and should be left unchanged.
Completing this poll grants you access to Big League Politics updates free of charge. You may opt out at anytime. You also agree to this site's Privacy Policy and Terms of Use.

But a close look at the American Christian church’s plans relating to its name reveal that it’s played with the idea far more seriously than they’re making it seem.

Reports of a name change first emerged in a Washington Post article published on Tuesday. SBC President JD Greear told the Post that “hundreds of churches” affiliated with the denomination had “committed” to using the phrase “Great Commission Baptist” as an alternative to the denomination’s longtime moniker. The change would come as Greear touts his support of the Black Lives Matter, although he’s been careful in pointing out he doesn’t support any formal organization related to the movement. Greear also is renaming the church he personally pastors with the term.

The SBC’s 2021 convention will also organize under the motto of “We Are Great Commission Baptists.” Sounds a lot like a name change, even if the SBC’s leadership is steadfastly maintaining it isn’t.

The name ‘Great Commission Baptist’ is theologically sound in the Christian religion, but it’s somewhat questionable that the organization’s leader appears to be emphasizing it at a moment in which political correctness is making its entryism into many Christian churches and organizations.

It seems as if the organization’s figurehead is keen to present himself as a liberal-style suburban Evangelical to the Washington Post, but he changed his tune quite quickly when the rank and file membership of Southern Baptist churches learned that he was promoting the idea of a name change.

Continue Reading
It's time to name Antifa a terror org! Sign your petition now!


Trending