Another Helping Of Soylent Green, Anyone..?

Taxing meat to simultaneously tackle climate change and improve global health would be far less unpalatable than governments think, according to new research.

Oh, really?

The research, from the international affairs thinktank Chatham House and Glasgow University, involved surveys and focus groups in 12 countries and found that even measures restricting peoples’ behaviour could be accepted if seen as in the public interest, as was seen with smoking bans.

Ah. Of course.

Tell me again how the slippery slope is a figment of everyone’s imagination?

“Governments are ignoring what should be a hugely appealing, win-win policy,” said lead author Laura Wellesley, at Chatham House.
“The idea that interventions like this are too politically sensitive and too difficult to implement is unjustified. Our focus groups show people expect governments to lead action on issues that are for the global good. Our research indicates any backlash to unpopular policies would likely be short-lived as long as the rationale for action was strong.”

In short ‘Hurrah! We’ve finally bred all the intransigence and cussedness out of the population, and we’re left with docile sheep. Now we can stop them eating sheep…’

Prof Greg Philo, also at Glasgow University, said the key was “creating a new public understanding that industrial production of meat is not only dangerous to your own health but to human ecology as a whole.”

Otherwise known as ‘convincing the stupid public that my personal little bugbear is right’…

None of the report’s authors are vegetarians, but Rob Bailey, from Chatham House, said: “Having worked on this project, I have drastically reduced my meat consumption – I now eat it once a month.”

A statement you can make secure in the knowledge that no-one will ever ask you to prove it…

5 comments for “Another Helping Of Soylent Green, Anyone..?

  1. The Jannie
    November 29, 2015 at 11:22 am

    Hereabouts Chatham House is a place where disaffected teenagers are treated / helped / supported. Maybe the two houses have become confused?

    • November 30, 2015 at 12:19 pm

      I’ve written on Chatham House many times. They are Them in London, heir of Tavistock, the ones who cause the mayhem. Go to search at OoL and my site and you’ll find all the posts on it. Cameron is heavily under their thumb.

      • December 6, 2015 at 7:04 am

        Oh, indeed. Another ‘Common Purpose’ cuckoo in the nest.

  2. ivan
    November 29, 2015 at 11:28 am

    Who commissioned this report? The answer to that question will be most enlightening .

    • john in cheshire
      November 29, 2015 at 5:09 pm

      Ivan, quite so: Who is telling me this and why do they want me to know it? I’m sure Chatham House has unpleasant connotations; aren’t so called Chatham House rules a euphemism for holding meetings at public expense but where no record is made of what has been discussed and agreed? Didn’t the last Labour government tend to use such rules when discussing their deviant and probably illegal, if not immoral, policies?

Comments are closed.