What is up you guys? Welcome to another edition of controversial thoughts. The other day I tweeted on Twitter, because that's what you do on Twitter is a tweet.

I tweeted that I generally avoid politics, and this is true. I generally not try not to take a political stance.

And I will not take a political stance in this video, but when the foods that I believe are the most central to human health longevity, radical enjoyment of life are threatened by political forces or political ideas.

I have to stand up for what I believe it. There was a big kerfluffle over the weekend when a couple of things happened. So there was a climate summit last weekend or last week.

And the Biden administration shared their ideas for climate, which are a lot of on the first day of the summit, President Biden up to the end, he announced the United States will target reducing emissions by 50 to 52% by 2030.

He said it was 2005 levels. And he went on to suggest that by 2050, perhaps we will be carbon zero enhanced in climate ambition, enabling the transformations required to reach net zero emissions by 2050.

President Biden is galvanizing efforts by the world's major economies to reduce emissions during this period.

Interestingly, the Biden administration has been hasn't said anything about the implications of red meat.

And no matter where you stand on the Biden administration, hopefully we can all agree or I believe we can all agree on the fact that we hope this administration will understand the nuances I'm going to talk about in this video.

And we'll defend the most nutritious foods on the planet that will be critical for regenerating ecosystems. So unfortunately what happened was that a apparently a 2020 report from the University of Michigan was connected with these recommendations in the daily mail.

Not the best newspaper in the world and it caused a big stir. So I'm not sure I agree with all of these University of Michigan recommendations. It was a 2020 publication. They say cutting animal foods in the US diet by half could present one prevent 1.0 billion tons of greenhouse gas emissions by 2030 sounds like a big number.

What is it all based on I'll show you in this video. And so the end of all of that was that in order to meet Biden's recommendations, we could all eat four pounds of meat per year and reduce our consumption of red meat by 90% again really bad ideas not based on true understanding of the data and quite misleading things which we'll talk about in this video.

And that got promulgated by Fox News and others and then the University of Michigan had to come back and say, oh wait, we didn't say that.

This is misinformation, everybody was fact checking. Okay, so they say there's no connection between our study, Joe Biden's climate plan.

This appears to be an association made erroneously by the daily mail that has been picked up widely.

Our study merely identifies the opportunities for emissions reductions that are possible from change in the diet. If I know means does it suggest these changes in diet will be required to meet climate goals.

Okay, so and then multiple other sources are echoing this like box, which tends to lean anti animals in general.

And I just as a piece of information and I thought it was pretty funny that one of a House of Representatives or public in House of Representatives.

Remember, dubbed Biden the hamburg so let's just hope that Biden doesn't become a hamburger in the future and that the administration will defend meat and organs as good sources of nutrition for humans and as parts of a healthy ecosystem on this point.

And I think the heck to the University of Michigan get these numbers. You can see here is the actual paper from 2020.

They say total emissions associated with producing the average US diet amounts to five kilograms of CO2 equivalents per person per day.

Or as red meat beef pork and lamb represents 9% of the calories available from this diet. It contributes 47% of the greenhouse gas emissions.

...