It’s a meal that will trigger all the right—all the LEFT people.
Okay, you ready?
Are you really prepared for this?
Okay, a warning, here it is, okay?
The ultimate trigger sculpture—a kind of culinary sculpture.
It has everything the Democrats hate: steak, plastic straws, and lightbulbs and if I could’ve
put an SUV on this, I would’ve, okay?
Can you sip a steak?
Mmm, tastes good, it’s kind of the vapors of the steak.
Oh my God.
Don’t ask me how we came up with this.
But these are the lightbulbs that Andrew Yang said are so dangerous to the planet because
they burn out too often.
I have a question—when you push that into the steak, is there any conduction whatsoever?
That’s all the time we have tonight.
Nothing like …drinking a lightbulb steak on national television to show the LEFT how
ridiculous THEY are.
This is Fox News’ Laura Ingraham on her show which her viewers believe is real journalism.
The woman with the …lightbulbs and straws sticking out of a ribeye.
So, next time you ask yourself how we ended up with Trump…
And this is all part of conservatives’ perpetual war on whatever well-meaning causes the left
takes up.
In this case, there are common sense steps that every person can take to mitigate the
effects of climate change, to reduce pollution, to help wildlife survive, to make sure we,
you know, have a planet.
Because, to be clear, we are literally seeing these effects as we speak as thousand-year
storms exacerbated by climate change now pop up every single year, multiple times per year,
ravaging islands like the Bahamas and Puerto Rico, and states like Louisiana, Florida,
Texas, the Carolinas— but surprisingly not Alabama.
[weird] Huh.
So let’s bring up the examples that Laura Ingraham derided.
Starting with the one ingredient that she regretted not being able to include in her
trigger meal, SUVs.
These vehicles generate higher volumes of pollutants into the atmosphere, and given
that transportation already accounts for 14% of global greenhouse gas emissions, an obvious
step would be promoting vehicles that are not only better for the environment, but have
as much as 30% better fuel efficiency, meaning that you’ll pay more for less.
Although apparently saving money and the environment isn’t worth the smug satisfaction that Laura
Ingraham gets by criticizing what should be a common sense move.
With regard to beef, scientists have proven that reducing beef consumption would cut carbon
emissions even more than if we gave up our cars.
Agriculture already accounts for 15% of all emissions, and red meat specifically requires
a staggering 28 times more land to produce than chicken, 11 times more water and results
in 5 times more climate-warming emissions.
Compare red meat to staples like potatoes or rice, and the difference is even more pronounced,
with red meat requiring 160 times more land and producing 11 times more greenhouse gases.
None of this is to say that the government should outright ban beef, but why criticize
a reduction of it?
It’s not like that’s the ONLY option possible for dinner.
Do we really have to shove hamburgers down our throats just because we can?
Plastic straws have become a favorite point of derision on the right, with even the president
opting to sell them to raise money for his re-election campaign.
We use over 500 million straws everyday in this country, most of which end up in the
ocean, polluting the water and killing marine life.
By the year 2050, there will be more plastic in the ocean than fish.
And if the environmental effects don’t do it for you, then consider that by introducing
billions of pieces of microplastics into the ocean, they’re ultimately making their way
into sea salts, 94% of US tap water, and even fish.
But hey, as long as you can avoid food and water, you should… be fine.
And finally, the lightbulbs.
She tries to take the opportunity to attack Democratic presidential candidate Andrew Yang
but all he was saying was that incandescent bulbs burn out and aren’t environmentally
friendly, so he advocated for bulbs that consume less energy and need to be replaced less often.
And while Ingraham tries to frame it as some radical leftist idea, it’s not.
In fact, in 2007, then-President Bush signed a law that would limit halogen and incandescent
bulbs.
Then President Obama signed a law again raising efficiency standards on a wider range of bulbs.
It was only when Trump took office that the phasing out of energy inefficient bulbs was
repealed because why seek progress when you can just actively destroy it?
And look, Laura Ingraham isn’t some maverick.
She’s repeating the same tired, bad faith talking points that the right has been parroting
for years—points that Elizabeth Warren demolished at CNN’s climate change town hall—
But understand, this is exactly what the fossil fuel industry hopes we’re all talking about.
That’s what they want us all to talk about.
This is your problem.
They want to be able to stir up a lot of controversy around your lightbulbs, around your straws,
around your cheeseburgers-- when 70 percent of the pollution, of the carbon that we’re
throwing into the air comes from 3 industries.
The point is that whether big or small, any steps help.
They help reduce carbons in the atmosphere, they help wildlife stay alive, they help humans
stay healthier.
The right’s agenda, per usual, isn’t in service of some greater good, it’s “owning
the libs.”
It’s defying science because they’ve opted to make facts political.
And here’s the thing—while that might work with their audience, an entire generation
of Americans tend to, you know, think science is real.
In fact, nearly 60% of millennials identify as Democrats while only 32% identify as Republicans,
with nearly a quarter of millennials saying that the environment was their most important
issue.
And I’d be willing to bet that there’s a direct correlation between young people
registering as Democrats and the fact that the GOP would rather drink a steak through
a straw on national television than take climate change seriously.
And look, neither I nor the Democratic Party are saying that we shouldn’t have the option
to drive an SUV, to eat a steak, to use a plastic straw or buy a regular lightbulb,
but we’re part of a society that has adopted certain rules that might inconvenience some
for the good of the many.
We can’t drive without a license.
We pay taxes every year.
We vaccinate our kids.
Inconvenient?
Yeah, sure, but we play by those rules, because we’re part of society.
It makes us safer and makes our world function better.
And those are WITHOUT the existential threat of climate change, so why not simply do your
part and be a functioning member of society WHILE WE STILL HAVE IT?
What benefit do conservatives derive from proving just how defiant they are in the face
of science?
Because something tells me whatever smug satisfaction they get doesn’t come close to the impact
felt by those who have lost their loved ones by one of those thousand-year hurricanes that
we’re now seeing on a weekly basis.
Something tells me it doesn’t come close to a family losing their home in one of the
wildfires that are now scorching hundreds of thousands of acres with increased prevalence.
Something tells me if doesn’t come close to a farmer losing his crops from record breaking
droughts.
Something tells me it’s not worth more than drinking microplastics and running out to
replace crappy lightbulbs and paying more at the pump.
Laura Ingraham might get some sick sense of satisfaction by sticking it to the libs, but
by perpetuating this anti-science agenda to millions of people, she might want to really
consider whether it’s worth the real life impacts that Americans are feeling.