The opinion column written by Boris Johnson, he ridicules and mocks the UN and IPCC’s

advisory on reducing climate change by reducing meat consumption climate change to

readers claiming that they are missing the bigger picture. In a world where climate change is
a growing issue due to globalisation, there are growing advocacies and advisories of
becoming more environmentally-friendly. Amongst these are the UN and Intergovernmental
Panel on Climate Change (IPCC)’s advisory to reduce consumption of meat in order to
reduce environmental damage from the greenhouse gas emissions that cows release. In
Boris Johnson’s opinion column, he rebutts and mocks the UN’s and IPCC’s stance of
reducing meat consumption. Yet, Boris then argues that it is natural for humans to eat meat
and we are dependent on our agriculture before pointing out that the core of the
environmental problems we are facing now is humans, and advises that we should compat
global overpopulation to reduce environmental problems.

Through the headline, ‘Save the planet by cutting down on meat? That’s just a load of bull,”
Boris uses a pun to draw a comparison between the reduction of meat and ‘bull’, a slang
which claims it is foolish, while ridiculing the idea of how cutting down on meat will save the
planet. The confrontational manner in which the opinion column is started interests the
reader as it may provide justification for why the reader should not give up meat in their diet
to help the environment as eating meat is an individual lifestyle that goes against the
collective good. Boris starts off his opinion column with a litote ,”I hate to be rude to the
UN,’ , pre-empting his remarks,’But if they seriously believe...they must be totally barmy,’
The initial start of using a litote, prompts the reader to consider what is being said in Boris’
opinion column. In Boris’ opinion column, he uses colloquialisms such as ‘barmy’ and ‘bull’,
creating an informal stance, to engage the readers as his word choice is simple yet
impactful. This allows the reader to connect with Boris’ as he uses simple, everyday
language to talk about a larger complex issue. The repetition of ‘No’ and ‘I’ also highlights his
firm stance against reducing meat consumption and uses sarcasm in which he states,’No,
Dr. Rahendra Pachauri, distinguished chairman of the panel,’ to exaggerate this. The firm
and bold confrontational manner in which he states his opinion is one that may be seen as
politically incorrect as he does not care if he offends the community who reduce their meat
consumption to save the environment. Yet, as the majority of the population is one that
consumes meat, he speaks out for the individual who does not want to change their lifestyle
for the environment as it may seem that not wishing to cut down on meat consumption as it
is a selfish act. This provokes the reader to reflect on what they truly want . The vivid visual
imagery that Boris uses such as,’‘’ ..‘carnivorous festivals of chops and sausages and
burgers and chitterlings and chine and offal, and the fat will run down our chins, and the
dripping will blaze on the charcoal,’ also then allows Boris’ to engage the reader to support
him as he entices the reader. He ends his mockery by justifying the reason behind it as he
says,’ Everybody knows the reality, and everybody - every environmentalist, every Guardian
columnist - pussyfoots around it.’ The use of the dysphemism,’pussyfoot’ reflects Boris’
personality of being outspoken without feeling the need to downplay what he truly feels.
Through stating his opinion in this manner, he allows the reader to form their own opinion
and feel safe to voice their opinion out loud as well.

Through the use of tripling where Boris claims that,’The problem is not the cows; the
problem is the people eating the cows. The problem is us,’ Boris emphasises his stance on
how reduction of meat consumption is useless as the core problem of environmental issues
are humans. It provokes the reader to reflect upon what truly is the core problem of
environmental issues and whether cows, as - by the UN and IPCC, are really the problem.
Boris then supports the UN and Dr Pachauri’s analysis where he states that ‘livestock make
a bigger contribution to the greenhouse effect than every motor vehicle on planet,’ He
visualises the impacts of the environment of livestock by drawing a comparison to motor
vehicles to show the severity. He then elaborates using run-on-sentences such as,’Cows are
spreading remorseless over the earth, as jungle turned into pasture, and pasture is turned
into cud…” Through this, Boris is providing a linkage in showing that he understands how
cows pollute the environment and he is not ignoring the factual science behind it. This
comforts and gains the trust of the reader as it shows that Boris makes his argument and
stance having understood the issue instead of making a biased and ignorant argument.
Boris then points out the flaw of Dr Pachauri’s argument stating,``What he neglects in his
argument are the 1,3 billion people whose livelihoods depend on agriculture and above all
he forgets the global population of human beings. It is our appetite for meat that supports
these farmers, and it is our insatiable desire for burgers that has called those poor cow ex s
into existence.” With providing a numerical figure, he seeks for the reader to empathise with
the magnitude of how farmers will be affected by reducing meat consumption. The repetition
of the collective noun ‘our’ used by Boris also mitigates the issue as he doesn’t create an
accusatory tone but creates a sense of togetherness when acknowledging that humans are
the reason for environmental pollution.

Boris uses rhetorical question,’Why, oh why will the modern UN say nothing about the real
issue, the prior issue, the unspeakable truth that is at the heart of deforestation, global
warming, the depletion of the seas, the destruction of species and just about every
environmental problem that afflicts us?’ This use of rhetorical questions proves to be
effective in pinpointing the issue and asserting to readers to think about the stance of the UN
just as Boris wishes. Boris then lists down the environmental issues, exaggerating them by
listing down negative extremes of environmental problems, which causes the reader to
reflect upon the credibility of the stance of the modern UN, pushing the reader to side with
Boris further. Boris then firmly states and directly identifies the problem with the use of ‘It is.’
When visualising the future in the year 2050, Boris uses tripling again to emphasise the
negative connotation,’more crowded, sweaty and exhausting’ than it already is to paint a
picture of the negative effects of global overpopulation. The use of adjectives causes the
reader to picture and create a negative bias towards global overpopulation. By manipulating
time and drawing comparisons for scale, Boris is able to pale the importance of the modern
UN, an international body, by saying how its advisories are ‘a spot of preaching’ as
compared to mankind’s lifestyle that has gone through, ’Millions of years of evolution’ . He
then uses epistemic modality to firmly claim his stance,`` Man is an omnivore, and those
meat animals must be farmed.” He then shares his experience, where he states how at the
‘long salad bars’, there was ‘no-one in the queue’ whilst on the other side, there were
‘athletes‘ queuing at Mcdonalds. He then provokes Dr. Pachauri stating that,’Before Dr
Pachauri preaches any more sermons against meat, I suggest he gets down to the UN
canteen and sees what his staff are eating,” which creates a casual tone whilst at the same
time pointing out to the reader that it is unrealistic to reduce meat consumption for everyday
workers who rely on it for energy and it is impossible to enact this stance even for the people
who work around Dr. Pachauri. It allows the reader to draw a conclusion that if people
around them will not reduce meat consumption, it is unlikely that the global population will.
Boris then shifts the light of the issue from a casual tone to one of seriousness. He spells out
‘the United Nations’ acknowledging the role compared to when he mocks it, he uses the
acronym,’UN.” He lists down the achievements of the United Nations when asking them to
champion a cause whilst reminding the reader the importance of the UN through glorifying it.
WIth the repetition of the word time’, he creates a sense of urgency for the UN to take action.
He the ends saying that, ‘It’s not eating meat that does the damage. It’s the huge and
remorselessly growing number of people who want to eat it’. Through the conclusion of short
and succinct, yet impactful statements that are parallel to each other, Boris allows the reader
to understand that the issue at hand is global overpopulation.