Birdnow's Aviary

August 19, 2019

Keto Dieters Are Killing the Planet Because Bacon and Butter or Something

Dana Mathewson

They just never stop. Actually, they might just as well blame "normal" omnivores for "killing the planet" because we eat bacon (pigs) and butter (cows), and we all know how badly those beasts damage Mother Gaia.

But it's actually rather fun to read their rants. I was going to say "listen to" their rants, but no! We don't have to go that far!

The warning is from a "Harvard nutrition expert." I'm going to let you go to the article to see what he says, because it's in a Tweet, and embedding Tweets here is quite clumsy. At least in my estimation.

Further down in the article we find:

Business Insider:

The world cannot run on bacon and butter.

Aside from the fact that there are not enough pigs and cows on the Earth to feed every person in such a high-fat way, this kind of meaty diet is dangerous for both human health and our planet's future.

That doesn't stop people from trying.

"Eating a keto diet that's especially high in red meat will be undermining the sustainability of the climate," Harvard nutrition professor Dr. Walter Willett told Business Insider. "It's bad for the person eating it, but also really bad for our children and our grandchildren, so that's something I think we should totally, strongly advise against. It's â€” in fact â€” irresponsible."

The horror!

I have been doing the keto way of eating (we don't call it a "diet") for over a year and a half and have run into a variety of haters and naysayers. Until now, they have all been telling me that I'm killing myself. Now I'm killing my planet.

A United Nations report released just last week suggests the world's beef-heavy consumption patterns are taking a serious toll on the health of our planet: food systems are now responsible for 37% of greenhouse gas emissions, and cow manure is a major part of that equation, as it releases large amounts of climate-changing nitrous oxide and methane into the air.

"Diets that are rich in plant-based food emit lower greenhouse-gas emissions than diets that are very heavy in red meat consumption," UN report co-author Cynthia Rosenzweig said during a press conference.

The climate change hysteria mongers are always defaulting to opinions from the United Nations, blissfully unaware that not everyone is a fan.

Noted keto advocate Dr. Jay Wrigley has quite a different view of what and who is bad for the planet:

[And you've got to refer to the article again because Dr. Wrigley's advice is in another Tweet. BTW: Dr. Wrigley is not on the side of the keto-ites (ketonians?)]

Why not just access the entire article? It's by PJMedia's Stephen Kruiser, and it's here: https://pjmedia.com/lifestyle/harvard-climate-loon-keto-dieters-are-killing-the-planet-because-bacon-and-butter-or-something/

Posted by: Timothy Birdnow at 01:18 PM | Comments (5) | Add Comment
Post contains 439 words, total size 4 kb.

1 Paul Driessen is policy advisor for the Committee For A Constructive Tomorrow and author of articles and books on natural resource issues. He has degrees in geology, ecology and environmental law.

Posted by: ado stunt cars 2 at August 20, 2019 07:27 AM (295tx)

A United Nations report released just last week suggests the world's beef-heavy consumption patterns are taking a serious toll on the health of our planet: food systems are now responsible for 37% of greenhouse gas emissions, and cow manure is a major part of that equation, as it releases large amounts of climate-changing nitrous oxide and methane into the air.

Posted by: run 3 at August 20, 2019 07:28 AM (295tx)

3 The U.N. is a political body with political ends, Run 3. Why do you put stock in what they say? Do you believe it when the tobacco companies tell you their product is safe? It's rather the same thing. The U.N. has ambitions to become a world government, and to do this they have to create an international culture. Food is a big part of it. Read my essay Where's the Beef? from a few years back. They want to eliminate beef because it a. is limited largely to the wealthy countries, particularly the U.S. and b. it takes more grain to feed a cow than a man, and they want to get us used to a "low impact" diet of grains so they can turn our farmland back into wilderness. And they want to create an international diet that all people can use.

If you don't trust tobacco company scientists or oil industry science, why do you trust the U.N.?

Posted by: Timothy Birdnow at August 20, 2019 08:35 AM (e6VRg)

4 I didn't include this part of the article, but the author said "When given the choice between a U.N. climate opinion and, well, anything else I'm taking anything else every time."
It's opinions like that that make him one of my favorite PJMedia writers. He might have gone a bit further and said "When given the choice between any U.N. opinion..."

Posted by: Dana Mathewson at August 20, 2019 10:06 AM (w+lqe)

5 Amen to that! Dana! If the U.N. bids me a good morning I'll put on my raincoat.

Posted by: Timothy Birdnow at August 20, 2019 10:19 AM (e6VRg)

Hide Comments | Add Comment