Lord Stern (of Stern Report fame) caused a bit of excitement this morning with an interview for the Times written up with the headline: "Climate Chief Lord Stern: Give up meat to save the planet". On the Today programme he clarified his position, saying that the Times headline was "unfortunate". Why? Had the Times misquoted him? We all know how it happens - a political figure says something that, in context, is perfectly sensible, but then the journalist places it into a different context in which it appears extreme and ridiculous. So was that what had happened with poor Lord Stern this morning - obviously he wasn't advocating anything as extreme (indeed, lunatic) as suggesting that we all give up meat?
Err...well...actually, what he thought was "unfortunate" about the Times article was the implication that we could save the planet by anything as limited as merely all becoming vegetarian. Instead, he said, changing our food consumption was just "one of the elements" and in fact we needed "across the board" changes - "electricity, transport, heating and food".
I see... We can't hope to prevent climate change by such petty and limited actions as merely giving up meat. We need to think really radically, to have really significant changes to our lifestyles.
Well, whilst we're thinking radically, and thinking about how to radically change our approach, how about this one: How about if we don't give up eating meat; don't give up travelling; don't enormously cut back our use of energy? Then, if the climate changes, we deal with it at the time?
