We now have the worthy Lord Stern, sternly telling us that we must become vegan for the good of the planet. Oooookaay... Would you greenies PLEASE get your stories straight?
While his nobleness is instructing us to go vegan for Gaia, wasn't it just a couple of days ago that some other tree-hugging enviro-whackjob was telling us to get pets we can eat, because Rover's worse than a Range Rover?
Yep. That they were.
It's hardly pushing a consistent message, is it? If both articles are true, then eating meat is both good and bad for the planet. Personally, given that you lot are clearly so utterly addled from protein deficiency you can't make any sense, I'll play it safe and carry on eating bacon sandwiches and the odd steak, thanks.
His Lordship neatly links eating meat with drink-driving. Bonus points for the emotive linking of issues, there, I thought. So, by that logic, me eating a hamburger is roughly equivalent to downing ten pints then mowing down a bus-stop's worth of pensioners? If I may hazard a guess, I'd say that the veggies Lord Stern chows down on contain rather too much THC for rational thought.
And that, dear Reader, is the problem with the environmental debate.
This debate isn't about rational science, because rational scientists are divided about causes, effects and solutions to a problem that may or may not be happening. Instead, it's become a politcal toy, a divisive issue that is more about dogma than dogs, more credo than carbon.
Lord Stern is a vegetarian, and therefore by definition mad. So he uses the climate question to further his own agenda of having the entire population subsist solely on cabbage. Robert and Brenda Vale simply don't like pets - perhaps their parents wouldn't let them have a gerbil, or something - so they use the climate question to further their own dislike of animal ownership.
Well, I've been doing my own research.
I have discovered that environmental campaigners produce gaseous emissions in proportions far greater than the average beef cow. In fact, an analysis of Lord Stern shows that he alone produces more damaging wind than the entire Virgin fleet of 747s. So, really, there's only one solution.
I am calling for environmental campaigners to become as socially-unacceptable as wife-beaters (there, do you see how easy the emotive link is?). And I think the best way to solve all the crises of the planet is to kill and eat anyone who bleats on about lowering carbon emissions, getting rid of airliners, or taxing whatever it is they don't agree with in the name of the environment.
In a stroke, we'd reduce the amount of noxious, damaging hot air being pumped into the atmosphere. We'd save the forests, because we'd get rid of the reams of paper spouting pointless, scienceless opinions about 'climate change'. We'd even make an impact into the food crisis, because getting rid of this lot would not only provide meat, but allow us all to eat the salad they'd have as a main course as a side to our sirloin.
And most importantly, it would ensure that they shut the fuck up.
I commend the idea to the House.