>>133270
I read "sacrificing animal flesh" and thought you were referring to the flesh of the crickets, but then I realized you probably weren't.
In any case, that's the supposed reason spoken out on TV, which would in my opinion make it a surface level take. More long term, the WEF hopes to have a worldwide net zero carbon emissions by 2050. You can find plenty of material on that by searching for the previous sentence. Personally, I think that if the problem is that acute that such extremes are necessary, then whatever has currently proposed doesn't seem to be enough. And they might see it that way too.
I could list a whole bunch of schemes they might be considering (but don't want to talk about just yet because there would be too much backlash right now), but I'm not sure just how dumb you'd think I was if I predicted renewed discussion on the death penalty as an environmental issue at some unknown point in the future.
But realistically, the technology exists to mass poison so many people to death that no one would ever have to worry about carbon dioxide again, and before we get to that point there are assuredly things that can be done that are actually more efficient that might make eating bugs unnecessary.
Have you ever thought about how they leave the lights on on billboards all night and how much energy that takes? Those kinds of things.
Besides, politicians don't operate on ideology, they ju