The New York Times had the gall to publish an essay that tried to paint skyrocketing consumer prices as a good thing because it will make Americans’ diets more eco-friendly.
Journalist Annaliese Griffin praised in a June 2 write-up for The Times how “Inflation has the potential to drive welcome change for the planet if Americans think differently about the way they eat.” Griffin spun the skyrocketing prices of meat, poultry, fish and eggs as a positive because they’re allegedly pushing Americans into vegan and vegetarian diets.
While ironically admitting that “hunger and food insecurity are a very real problem in the United States and globally,” she still spun that “middle- and upper-class Americans still have more choices at the grocery store than perhaps any food shoppers in history.” This is what happens when the left attempts a hot take: babbling nonsense.
Griffin even mourned that climate change in itself wasn’t doing enough to spur change in people’s eating habits. “Climate change has motivated some to eat less resource-intensive meat and more vegetables, grains and legumes, but this movement has not reached the scale necessary to bring needed change — yet.” Looks like inflation, according to Griffin’s bizarre logic, may do the trick and bring the “needed change” she clamored for in her essay.
But it got worse.
Griffin continued fawning over how “[i]nflation resulting from the cost of fuel and feed, coupled with supply chain slowdowns, may make meat substitutes more affordable relative to traditional, factory-farmed meats.”
But Griffin couldn’t stop. She went as far as spinning the atrocious 1970s stagflation era as a case study on the benefits of an inflation-plagued economy: “The 1970s brought us brown rice, granola, exciting vegetables like eggplant and zucchini, and every conceivable way to prepare a lentil.”
Climate Depot founder Marc Morano slammed Griffin’s absurd argument in exclusive comments to MRC Business: “The New York Times seems bent on updating Gordon Gekko's phrase from the 1987 film Wall Street: Chaos, for lack of a better word, is GOOD,” Morano wrote “Climate activists in academia, the Biden admin. and the media seem to think the more humans suffer, the more the planet will benefit.”
Morano noted Griffin’s argument “is more evidence that economic calamity, debt, inflation, supply chain issues, and skyrocketing meat and energy costs are not the unintended consequences of the climate agenda.” In Morano’s view, the skyrocketing costs of necessities such as meat are “the INTENDED consequences,” as he noted, “Chaos conditions the public to accept more centralized control of their lives.”
Morano was on point.
Griffin continued, trying to convince readers to set their eyes on the “culinary legacy” the near-40-year-high inflation crisis will bring to America's dietary habits: “Freed from having meat in every meal and with a world of recipes at our fingertips, what will the delicious culinary legacy of this inflationary period be?”
Conservatives are under attack. Contact The New York Times at 1-800-698-4637 and demand it quit publishing content that tries to spin the 40-year-high inflation crisis as a positive development.