Stories
Slash Boxes
Comments

SoylentNews is people

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This discussion has been archived.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: 5, Insightful) by Arik on Tuesday December 12 2017, @02:01AM (3 children)

    by Arik (4543) on Tuesday December 12 2017, @02:01AM (#608590) Journal
    You're pretending an acre is an acre, but surely you realize that's not true?

    Much of the land used for cattle is used because it's unsuitable for most other crops. You can't just turn 1,000 acres of grazing land into wheat or broccoli or whatever, typically. And where you see cattle kept on land that IS suitable for other things it's normally a small operation, mom and pops have to use the land they have. Big Agribiz can and does move all the cattle out to a big plot of land that's otherwise useless or nearly so.

    So what you have would not only have little effect, what effect it would have would be drive even more small farms out of business. Probably not the direction you really want to go, all things considered.

    --
    If laughter is the best medicine, who are the best doctors?
    Starting Score:    1  point
    Moderation   +3  
       Insightful=1, Interesting=1, Informative=1, Total=3
    Extra 'Insightful' Modifier   0  
    Karma-Bonus Modifier   +1  

    Total Score:   5  
  • (Score: 2) by JoeMerchant on Tuesday December 12 2017, @02:21PM (2 children)

    by JoeMerchant (3937) on Tuesday December 12 2017, @02:21PM (#608724)

    Something like 25% of central Florida ag-land is used for cattle grazing. This is land suitable for citrus, vegetable and all sorts of other production, but since the Lykes Brothers want to use it for cattle, it's used for cattle (along with several other large - for Florida - ranching concerns.)

    Hawaii finally gave up cattle on the big island, mostly because it's more cost effective to import than grow locally. Similarly they gave up sugar back in the 1970s... more social issues around that one, but basically, (Hawaiian) people can make more money changing sheets in a hotel room than they can harvesting sugar cane.

    And, what part of:

    6000 square feet of productive pastureland (or 100,000 square feet of desert scrub, or 1500 square feet of intensively farmed soybeans, etc.)

    is pretending that an acre is an acre?

    --
    Україна досі не є частиною Росії. https://www.newsweek.com/russian-state-tv-ukraine-war-dirty-bomb-putin-1754428
    • (Score: 3, Insightful) by Freeman on Tuesday December 12 2017, @05:47PM (1 child)

      by Freeman (732) on Tuesday December 12 2017, @05:47PM (#608814) Journal

      Assuming XYZ person / company owns the land, and it's not zoned for XYZ thing. Leave them alone. Complaining that a company / person that raises cattle on land that could be used for something else is the definition of busybody. I could use my land to raise goats (not enough room for cattle), or plant a garden. I could even do both, but I find I like gardening better. Plus, goats can get out of most fences and I've had perfectly good strawberries go to some fairly thankless goats. Purely subjective to my whims. That's what the "American Dream" used to be, you can do what you want where you want, within certain acceptable parameters, and hopefully do more than just survive.

      --
      Joshua 1:9 "Be strong and of a good courage; be not afraid, neither be thou dismayed: for the Lord thy God is with thee"
      • (Score: 2) by JoeMerchant on Tuesday December 12 2017, @08:45PM

        by JoeMerchant (3937) on Tuesday December 12 2017, @08:45PM (#608919)

        Not complaining, quite the opposite, but pointing out that not all cattle are ranched on land that isn't suited for other things - quite the opposite.

        --
        Україна досі не є частиною Росії. https://www.newsweek.com/russian-state-tv-ukraine-war-dirty-bomb-putin-1754428