The competence of the medical profession in climate issues
Let's take Dottore Eduardo Erdogan Emanuel Elias Ernesto Eckard van Hirschhusen as an example, whom we know - if not as a practising doctor, at least - from the TV set. After some time ago his participation as a council member in a 'genial' entertainment programme revealed, since he could not answer a simple medical question that a third-grader would probably have taken as a joke to at least come up with a funny answer, that he has no idea of his studied and briefly practised speciality, he could now score points with disappointed patients with a suggestion that catapulted him far forward again in sympathy.
In an interview with 'Die Zeit' he expressed the idea of adding 20 litres of manure to customers who buy 'cheap meat'. This goes to the heart of any climate policy and is finally a well thought-out measure.
Although the plan lacked any indication of whether the precious manure would be delivered in a bucket or sprayed directly into customers' hands from a large silo, the accomplished physician admitted when asked by our editorial team that he had indeed not spoken to the discounters and market operators. Nor, the 53-year-old admitted, could he assess the logistical peculiarities, whether in the entire production chain from rearing to slaughtering to further processing, there would always be someone standing next to the later goods with just such a bucket to pick up the waste produced.
Or whether the term cheap meat also includes products that are produced cheaply but sold at a correspondingly higher price due to the printing of organic logos.
Using the example of cattle breeding, however, he knew that cows are largely responsible for the methane gases in the atmosphere, which, in contrast to industrial exhaust gases, are the main cause of climate change (compare also our North Stream article) and that it would be better to cut down the rainforest for maize, soya and wheat fields instead, so as not to give cattle pastures any more space. That would be irresponsible towards the climate.
The author, who is on the list of prominent rich people, certainly had in mind the financial situation of families who do not run their own Demeter farm only because they live in the outskirts of an air-polluted big city, because only there the rent eats up less than two thirds of the income and every food is bought because of the price and not because of colourful logos and seals of organic farming.
Apart from the lack of a definition of 'cheap', a small drawback is the uncertainty for the consumer. Does the 20-litre rule apply to each slice of sausage or to each kilogram? Instead of cycling to the supermarket, a car would have to be bought to transport the slurry.
The fact that his statement was also not inspired by any consideration that this would make cheap meat more expensive than a flight to Majorca - if one assumes that the average irresponsible meat buyer can even think about ever being able to go on a holiday again, let alone on a flight with paraffin tax concessions - may convey that this article is intended to convey a bad image of the popular TV doctor. But the opposite is true. We are all happy when someone says things in public that reflect the opinion of society.