Fierce Patriots

Conservative Political News

  • Subscribe

<![CDATA[Climate Change]]>

It’s Official: European Food Will Now Contain Crickets

by Leave a Comment

If you’ve not yet consumed crickets, you may soon — particularly if you’re a partaker of European fare.

The European Union is putting the “pow” in “powder.” It’s giving eaters an explosion of insect compliments of a pinch of arthropod. From now on, those overseas will be bound to eat ground cousins of grasshoppers.

Following a three-year review, Implementing Regulation (EU) 2017/2470 went into effect Tuesday. It allows food producers to put cricket powder in flour-based products.

In its scientific opinion, the [European Food Safety Authority] concluded that Acheta domesticus (house cricket) partially defatted powder is safe under the proposed conditions of use and use levels. … [T]hat scientific opinion gives sufficient grounds to establish that Acheta domesticus (house cricket) partially defatted powder when used in [an assortment of food] fulfills the conditions for its placing on the market…

Cricket powder will be permitted in the following:

  • Multigrain Bread and Rolls
  • Crackers and Breadsticks
  • Cereal Bars
  • Dry Pre-Mixes for Baked Products
  • Biscuits
  • Dry Stuffed and Non-Stuffed Pasta-Based Products
  • Sauces
  • Processed Potato Products
  • Legume- and Vegetable- Based Dishes
  • Pizza
  • Pasta-Based Products
  • Whey Powder
  • Meat Analogues
  • Soups and Soup Concentrates or Powders
  • Maize Flour-Based Snacks
  • Beer-Like Beverages
  • Chocolate Confectionary
  • Nuts and Oilseeds
  • Snacks Other Than Chips
  • Meat Preparations

The original application to start bugging people’s plates came courtesy of Cricket One, a company promoting “classic protein for a modern world.”

From CricketOne.Asia:

Cricket protein is nutritionally more efficient, high performing and complete. It is a reliable and sustainable source of alternative protein that does not harm the planet.

Cricket One is responsible for the farming practice of crickets while also innovating the highest quality and most sustainable ingredients for food, beverage, cosmetics, and pet food.

According to Cricket One, “Traditional cricket farmers and retailers are ineffective due to unsustainable practices, barriers to scalability, and high costs of production.” So forget traditional insect nutrition and rub your legs together for contemporary cricket cuisine.

The prospect of picking antennae out of your teeth has long been looming. Six years ago, the New York Post provided a progressive profile:

At Tomorrow’s Harvest farm, you won’t find acres of land on which animals graze, or rows of corn, or bales of hay. Just stacks of boxes in a basement and the summery song of thousands of chirping crickets.

It’s one of a growing number of operations raising crickets for human consumption that these farmers say is more ecologically sound than meat but acknowledge is sure to bug some people out.

In February of 2021, Time posed, “They’re healthy. They’re sustainable. So why don’t humans eat more bugs?”

Back to The Post that same year:

Bill Gates believes the wealthiest countries should switch to eating “100% synthetic beef” in order to help combat climate change.

The second-richest man in the world floated his ideas to reduce greenhouse gas emissions in a new interview with MIT’s Technology Review.

Bill — who’s reportedly purchased thousands of acres of farmland — believes in you:

“You can get used to the taste difference, and the claim is they’re going to make it taste even better over time. Eventually, that green premium is modest enough that you can sort of change the [behavior of] people or use regulation to totally shift the demand.”

Serve up Insecta, save the world. Bugs are big impending business, and profit is delicious.

Change is chirping in Europe, and we’re no doubt not far behind. So in the future, don’t be surprised if your meal has mealworms. And soon, when you get some grub…it may be grub worms.

-ALEX

See more content from me:

College Founded in 1892 Offers Dorm for Transgender Students

Discipline Is Indigestable: Health Official Warns Against Workplace Cake, Compares It to Secondhand Smoke

Math Professor Says Math Education Is Racist — and Sexist and Homophobic

Find all my RedState work here.

Thank you for reading! Please sound off in the Comments section below.

Trending on RedState Video

Much Too Late, the Biden Administration Admits Canceling the Keystone XL Pipeline Was a Mistake

by Leave a Comment

One of the first things the Biden administration did when it came into office was to nix the Keystone XL pipeline approval that former President Donald Trump put in place.

Biden, who was being guided by his own hatred of Trump as well as the influence of the far-left environmentalists, did it without a second thought to the jobs and energy independence Americans desperately needed. The results of such a move, as we’ve seen over the course of the last year, have been catastrophic. And we now know that Biden is aware of it. They just don’t want to say it out loud.

Via Fox News:

The Biden administration published a congressionally mandated report highlighting the positive economic benefits the Keystone XL Pipeline would have had if President Biden didn’t revoke its federal permits.

The report, which the Department of Energy (DOE) completed in late December without any public announcement, says the Keystone XL project would have created between 16,149 and 59,000 jobs and would have had a positive economic impact of between $3.4-9.6 billion, citing various studies. A previous report from the federal government published in 2014 determined 3,900 direct jobs and 21,050 total jobs would be created during construction which was expected to take two years.

But, it’s not just the jobs. This would have had a major impact on the amount of crude oil that could have been brought into the United States, which could have helped offset the energy crisis we saw in 2022 – and appears to be spiking again.

Keystone XL had been slated to be completed early this year and transport an additional 830,000 barrels of crude oil from Canada to the U.S. through an existing pipeline network, according to its operator, TC Energy.

[…]

“The Department of Energy finally admitted to the worst-kept secret about the Keystone Pipeline: President Biden’s decision to cancel the Keystone XL Pipeline sacrificed thousands of American jobs,” [Sen. Jim] Risch said Thursday.

“To make matters worse, his decision moved the U.S. further away from energy independence and lower gas prices at a time when inflation and gas prices are drastically impacting Americans’ pocketbooks,” he added.

“The president must turn to American-made energy and jobs rather than dictators and despots to fix the energy crisis he created on his first day in office.”

The American energy crisis has had a major impact on the financial security of American citizens who were already dealing with higher prices across the board. And while the most recent Consumer Price Index report shows inflation cooling, the bulk of that came from energy prices dropping. While that might seem like a good thing, prices are still far higher than they were when Biden took office, and, what’s worse, they seem to be on the rise again.

The national average for a gallon of gas is now a little over 30 cents higher than it was a month ago, according to AAA.

RealClearEnergy points out that it isn’t just the Keystone XL pipeline decision that is making things worse – the left has chosen a series of policy moves that have hurt Americans.

Two years into sowing its Green New Deal policies, the administration is reaping a bitter harvest. Due to Biden’s folly, oil, natural gas and electricity prices have more than doubled in just a single year. Meanwhile, more than 28 percent of Americans abstained from purchasing food or medicine to pay an energy bill in 2021. And now, the misnamed Inflation Reduction Act includes wind and solar spending that will cost Americans $369 billion.

If the president and his Democratic allies in Congress refuse to heed lessons from the past, they have a rare opportunity to view an even more desperate future of what will certainly come to pass by staying on the same irresponsible course.

We can see the results of such policies in Europe, where several countries are not only struggling to make their commitment to cutting fossil fuels work, they are outright reversing them (and without increasing their emissions).

The Democrats have hurt Americans with these policies, and the Department of Energy report admitting it was a mistake (even if they don’t outright say it) is a sign that they know it. But, just because they know it doesn’t mean they’ll change their minds.

Trending on RedState Video

Noted Climatologist Kamala Harris Explains How Weather and Climate Interact

by Leave a Comment

When Kamala Harris talks, we listen. Not because she has something brilliant or interesting to say, but because, like a car wreck, we can’t help it; the cringe is just too cringy to pass up. The noted climatologist-meteorologist on Friday explained the interaction between weather and climate to weary Californians.

As reported by the Los Angeles Times, Harris joined state and local leaders at a Los Angeles County site recently upgraded to increase groundwater retention, where they lauded ongoing efforts to improve drought resiliency across California and neighboring states. Harris’s visit came after a series of storms battered the state for weeks, causing fatalities, flooding, and extensive damage — but also provided record-setting precipitation needed in the water-starved West. (Reason no. 7,594 why I don’t live in California.)

The above backdrop was all Harris needed to incisively [sarc] let the hilarity rip, silly hand motions for emphasis, and the whole bit. Ladies and gentlemen, your vice president:

In dealing with the various issues that are present when we look at the climate crisis, we think about water policy. Uh, diversifying water policy. Understanding that we must have the ability to diversify our approach and the resources. Everything in terms of what we do for conservation, recycling, desalinization, and source of water.

This plant and this facility in particular is doing some of the smartest and the most contemporary kind of work that is necessary to store water, understanding that the climate crisis presents exactly what we’ve experienced here in California.

It gets even more hilarious. And by “more hilarious,” I mean utter gibberish:

We’re gonna have days — and sometimes there will be days — with immense water of rains and storms and flooding, and at the same time we are a state that has experienced for generations, draughts.

And we must therefore understand that the issue that are present in the climate crisis are varied — and it requires us to be present and to be in front of each of the iterations and variations that include extreme weather that produces a lot of water and extreme weather that produces draught.

Got it? Hell no, you don’t and neither do I.

What I do get of course — and chances are you do as well — is that I long ago tired of taking the climate loons’ claims apart, one by one, which was tedious at best and a complete waste of time at worst. As is the case with abortion, religion, and other third-rail issues, no one is going to change anyone else’s mind about “the existential threat of mankind.”

Harris referenced “climate crisis” three times in her above comments, yet correctly described “extreme weather” as the cause of excessive rains and flooding — and draughts, as well. So how do you debate these alarmists? You don’t. As with a car wreck, you just cringe and shake your head as you pass by.

Incidentally, as I reported in July, Americans in record numbers are pulling to plug on climate hysteria. Yet John Kerry, Al Gore, Joe Biden, and Joe’s “climate czar” continue to tilt at windmills that don’t exist.

Trending on RedState Video

How Al Gore Amassed a $330 Million Climate Fortune by Terrifying Everyone

by Leave a Comment

(The opinions expressed by contributors are their own and do not necessarily represent the views of RedState.com.)

Former Vice President and 2000 presidential election loser Al Gore has spent his post-political career warning anyone who will listen that the earth is in its death throes due to global warming (now called climate change because somehow that’s better).

His 2006 documentary “An Inconvenient Truth” amassed $49 million at the world box office and catapulted Al into the top ranks of climate hysterics, and he’s never looked back, constantly jetting to meetings around the world to preach his truth.

This week he’s at the World Economic Forum in Davos, Switzerland, because of course he is.

Is he doing this because he truly believes what he’s saying, or because he cares so very much about you? While we can’t read his mind, one thing we do know for sure: climate change has been very, very good to Al Gore. Though he was worth approximately $1.7 million at the end of his vice presidency, he has now amassed an estimated $330 million fortune, owns houses in Virginia, California, and Tennessee, and receives a cool $2 million a month for a figurehead position at the Generation Investment Management green energy fund he founded with former Goldman Sachs Managing Director David W. Blood.

There are only two conclusions I can come to upon learning this news—1) I should have been a climate activist. 2) Hunter Biden has nothing on this guy.

If he’s so concerned about rising seas, why would Gore buy a huge oceanfront mansion in flood-prone Montecito? One might ask the same question of former president Barack Obama, who dropped $12 million for a waterfront view on the island of Martha’s Vineyard.

Gore’s other property holdings are pretty sweet, too, according to Daily Mail:

Gore’s family has owned farming land in his native Tennessee for generations, while his mansion in Nashville is valued at $7.5 million, his waterfront villa in Montecito, where he counts Oprah as a neighbor [and don’t forget Prince Harry], is worth $13 million, his Virginia home is worth around $3 million as is his apartment in the St. Regis building in San Francisco.

Where did he get all this money? He has a stake in the aforementioned $36 billion Generation Investment Management fund, around $80 million worth of stock in companies such as Apple and Google, and a salary from Apple as a compensation committee member. He receives $200,000 a pop per public speaking engagement and also advises companies on “going green” for undisclosed (but presumably huge) fees.

Notice how every one of the recommendations in the above video would benefit Gore and the Generation Investment fund financially.

Remember Al Gore’s utility bill? ABC News does. Not long after “An Inconvenient Truth” won an Oscar in 2007, Gore was embarrassed by revelations that he regularly dropped $30,000 a year in gas and electric bills to power his 20-room home, burning through nearly 221,000 kilowatt-hours—or more than 20 times the national average. Dude, if you’re going to be a climate guru, might want to turn down your AC!

Mr. Gore, known to some detractors as Algore or even Al Bore, may not be fun to listen to, but he certainly has a knack for monetizing this existential crisis. Here he is in Davos Wednesday delivering a talk unhinged rant about “rain bombs” and “boiling oceans”:

It doesn’t matter that many if not most of Al Gore’s predictions have failed to come true—Florida is still above the sea, and the snow on Mt. Kilimanjaro is still 100 feet thick–but that hasn’t stopped the former VP from making a fortune off scaring people and convincing kids like Greta Thunberg that their parents destroyed the world.

Unfortunately, for most of us who don’t have $2 million a month coming to us from a green investment fund, his work has mostly just resulted in exploding utility bills.

–> See Also:

Trending on RedState Video

LA Times: Never Mind, Those Big California Rainstorms Weren’t Caused by Climate Change After All

by Leave a Comment

Over the last several weeks, much of the nation’s media has been frothing at the mouth over the unprecedented, historic, incredibly dangerous storms that have drenched California. They threw out scary-sounding terms like “bomb cyclone,” blamed the evil “Pineapple Express” precipitation system and global warming, and in general acted as if something of this magnitude was unprecedented and unthinkable.

Turns out, not really.

Although the deluge caused serious destruction and loss of life, it actually wasn’t all that unusual and wasn’t caused by climate change. As I wrote at the time, weather happens. The Los Angeles Times surprisingly, admits this in Thursday’s edition:

Although scientists are still studying the size and severity of storms that killed 19 people and caused up to $1 billion in damage, initial assessments suggest the destruction had more to do with California’s historic drought-to-deluge cycles, mountainous topography and aging flood infrastructure than it did with climate-altering greenhouse gasses.

They were singing a different tune on January 11:

But climate change is still the culprit, right? It must be; that’s what the New York Times told me. Actually, no, according to researchers:

Although the media and some officials were quick to link a series of powerful storms to climate change, researchers interviewed by The [Los Angeles] Times said they had yet to see evidence of that connection. Instead, the unexpected onslaught of rain and snow after three years of punishing drought appears akin to other major storms that have struck California every decade or more since experts began keeping records in the 1800s.

Oh. Don’t tell that to Governor Gavin Newsom, who would blame a 70-degree sunny day on climate change:

None of this is meant to diminish the impact of the storms or belittle those who were killed or harmed. The point is, storms like these are “historic” only in the fact they’ve occurred often in history before. Scripps Institution of Oceanography scientist Alexander Gershunov says the quiet part out loud:

“We know from climate models that global warming will boost California storms of the future, but we haven’t made that connection with the latest storm systems,” said Alexander Gershunov, a climate scientist at Scripps Institution of Oceanography. “Assuming that these storms were driven by global warming would be like assuming an athlete who breaks a record was on steroids.”

How does it compare to past storms? Turns out 1956 was much worse:

Indeed, this mid-winter’s precipitation was far behind the 1956 season, when California had received a whopping 85.3% of its average annual precipitation by Jan. 17, according to the Center for Western Weather and Water Extremes. As of Wednesday, California had accumulated about 70% of its average annual total, the center said.

Within the last century, Southern California experienced the “Great flood of 1938,” which killed more than 100 people; left thousands homeless and prompted officials to line the Los Angeles River with concrete as a means of flood control. Other intense storms have occurred in 1964, 1969, 1982, 1986, 1995, and 2005, when a school camp perched 3,600 feet above Pasadena in the Angeles National Forest recorded 107 inches of rain in one week.

The recent storms were intense; my lawn briefly turned into a swimming pool and the normally dry LA “river” (actually a massive concrete spillway) was gushing. I well remember the storm in 2005, though, and it was pretty darn intense too. The problem with officials and the media claiming every weather event is the result of man-made global warming—when this downpour was actually part of a regular cycle—severely undermines their credibility.

–> See also:

Trending on RedState Video