Slash Boxes

SoylentNews is people

SoylentNews is powered by your submissions, so send in your scoop. Only 17 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This discussion has been archived.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 JoeMerchant on Tuesday December 12 2017, @10:14PM

    by JoeMerchant (3937) on Tuesday December 12 2017, @10:14PM (#608969)

    Your royal we amuses us.

    The empowered women argument sounds nice... travel a bit in Latin America, Asia, and even the UK and tell me just how empowered the women are there? Better than 1800, sure, but "in control" of their reproductive destiny? Hell, half of the US wants to ban abortion clinics, and a quarter want to ban all contraceptives. If even one quarter of the world is running on misogynistic power trips, that's going to be 2 billion people soon, and as they continue to proliferate their attitudes will gain in popularity.

    We on this side of skepticism will begin to believe the predictions of population control when a few sustained years of population decline have happened, the Earth is already too damn crowded for sustainability - singing "kumbaya, every little thing gonna be alright" is simply ignoring the root cause of the sixth mass extinction event.

    🌻🌻 []
    Starting Score:    1  point
    Karma-Bonus Modifier   +1  

    Total Score:   2