SoylentNews is people
SoylentNews
Like tobacco, carbon emissions and sugar, we can expect the harm to human health and the environment caused by the production and consumption of meat to be mitigated by 'sin taxes'in the next five to ten years.
"Sin taxes" on meat to reduce its huge impact on climate change and human health look inevitable, according to analysts for investors managing more than $4tn of assets.
The global livestock industry causes 15% of all global greenhouse gas emissions and meat consumption is rising around the world, but dangerous climate change cannot be avoided unless this is radically curbed. Furthermore, many people already eat far too much meat, seriously damaging their health and incurring huge costs. Livestock also drive other problems, such as water pollution and antibiotic resistance.
A new analysis from the investor network Farm Animal Investment Risk and Return (Fairr) Initiative argues that meat is therefore now following the same path as tobacco, carbon emissions and sugar towards a sin tax, a levy on harmful products to cut consumption. Meat taxes have already been discussed in parliaments in Germany, Denmark and Sweden, the analysis points out, and China's government has cut its recommended maximum meat consumption by 45% in 2016.
Would you pay a "meat tax" or would you change your eating habits?
(Score: 3, Insightful) by qzm on Tuesday December 12 2017, @03:58AM (2 children)
Their estimates for AGW have long long ago been debunked, why is this crap still being published?
They make NO allowance for the short half-life of methane in the atmosphere.
They nicely forget that Dairy contributes significantly more than meat production.
There is no allowance for the carbon SINK that is grasslands (yes, shocking, that carbon they eat wasnt sitting there for millions of years)
Basically they are making up completely false numbers, then trying to use it to push their personal dietary views.
They are probably mostly pissed that their big push from back in the day that red meat was the cause of all heart problems was also been debunked.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday December 12 2017, @04:35AM
Except they were not, it is only that you believe so. Granted, the estimates weren't confirmed either.
(Score: 4, Insightful) by JoeMerchant on Tuesday December 12 2017, @08:42PM
All science related to AGW is so politically charged that it is more akin to religious faiths.
Both sides of the debate conveniently leave out data which doesn't support their thesis, and when one side doesn't they end up looking like John Scopes defending evolution against William Jennings Bryan. Fair, balanced, ethical debate supported by facts is a well proven way to lose in the court of public opinion.
🌻🌻 [google.com]