Slash Boxes

SoylentNews is people

SoylentNews is powered by your submissions, so send in your scoop. Only 13 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This discussion has been archived.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: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday December 12 2017, @04:37PM (1 child)

    by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday December 12 2017, @04:37PM (#608778)

    Fungi are not technically plants, so that might account for the discrepancy between what you and the parent AC are arguing about. []

  • (Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday December 12 2017, @08:24PM

    by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday December 12 2017, @08:24PM (#608900)

    The point that the researcher in my link was making is that production of B12 by a CO2-breathing non-animal would be an investment in resources with zero return for the organism.

    ...and any B12 found in|on a non-animal is contamination (from an animal source).
    From the AC responder's link:

    The majority of B12 is in the surface of the cup of the mushroom, that appears to be settling from the air.

    There has also been speculation that microorganisms can produce B12 via fermentation.
    The researcher in my link investigated that and found no substantiation for that claim.

    ...and, if you were really old (as I am), you would remember a time when we were taught there were only 2 kingdoms: plants and animals.

    -- OriginalOwner_ []