Slash Boxes

SoylentNews is people

SoylentNews is powered by your submissions, so send in your scoop. Only 12 submissions in the queue.
posted by janrinok on Monday December 11 2017, @10:06PM   Printer-friendly
from the my-cold,-dead-animal dept.

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?

Original Submission

This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.
Display Options Threshold/Breakthrough Mark All as Read Mark All as Unread
The Fine Print: The following comments are owned by whoever posted them. We are not responsible for them in any way.
  • (Score: 2) by Spook brat on Monday December 11 2017, @11:36PM (1 child)

    by Spook brat (775) on Monday December 11 2017, @11:36PM (#608538) Journal

    The solution to one of those taxes is pee-cycling!


    In my community they assume that all water entering the home leaves via the sewer. They simply make the effluent volume for tax purposes match the water intake, which eliminates (heh!) the need for a gauge on the sewer flow. No effort is made to account for things like irrigation, which is a major portion of water use in my city. So recycle your pee all you want, you're still getting double taxed for it - both times on the way in.

    Of course, you could look at it another way; if you figure out a way to pee directly into your sewer line w/o needing to flush you could get free use of the sewer by drinking most of your water elsewhere. Of course, get too aggressive about this and they'll get mad at you for not "doing your part" to contribute to the water line maintenance. I guarantee that they won't let you connect to the sewer w/o connecting to city water as well...

    Travel the galaxy! Meet fascinating life forms... And kill them []
    Starting Score:    1  point
    Karma-Bonus Modifier   +1  

    Total Score:   2  
  • (Score: 3, Funny) by Gaaark on Tuesday December 12 2017, @12:03AM

    by Gaaark (41) Subscriber Badge on Tuesday December 12 2017, @12:03AM (#608546) Journal

    Damn! Now you make me want to find a way of 'burying' myself in the sewer system: if you have to pay for it anyway, it's a cheap funeral. BAWOOOOOSH, "bye Daddy!"

    --- Please remind me if I haven't been civil to you: I'm channeling MDC. ---Gaaark 2.0 ---