Support NeoGAF

[SomTervo]

The stupidiest part about this is that children in poor families would greatly be affected by the dairy tax. You could expect a comeback of rickets and generally weaker bones.

You know there are other sources of calcium, right?

 

[Futureman]

are vegans allowed to eat bugs?

Most people who call themselves vegans would not eat bugs.

 

[tariniel]

Before you know it we're going to be eating ground up insects made into bars like that stupid train movie with captain america.

I don't eat beef often enough to feel the sting there, but I do regularly eat chicken and turkey. Also yogurt. Really not down for more taxes but what the hell does my opinion matter anyway.

 

[SmackCrackleNPop]

I don't eat diaries

 

[Circinus]

Meat and dairy is high-quality food and a vital source of nutrients. You shouldn't tax that.

Food can be "high quality" and a vital source of nutrients and still be bad for the population's health and thus be related to a society's healthcare costs.


Not sure what you mean with "high quality", but in biology anything that is calorie dense is referred to as high-quality and the rest is low-quality (like foliage). Grass, leaves, stems, tree bark, pith etc is low-quality. Fruit, meat, eggs, fish, grains, seeds, nuts, legumes, tubers etc are high-quality food.

All fast food, snacks, cookies, biscuits etc can be considered "high-quality food" and those kind of foods contain vital nutrients as well.


So even if bacon or sugar-sweetened breakfast cereals are high-quality and a vital source of nutrients, it doesn't mean that regular consumption of those foods does not negatively contribute to cardivascular health of a person.

 

[Unhandled Exception]

Your mistake is assuming we need a valid reason to oppose this.

I like meat and dairy. I don't want them to be more expensive. I don't like this idea. I will oppose it were someone over here foolish enough to attempt to propose it.

That's all the validity I need.

So basically your whims are more important than the massive impact they have on the planet.

 

[Killerhertz]

I take ice cold showers that's my contribution

 

[WolfeTone]

Reading responses to threads like these always frustrates me because so many posters are completely unwilling to adjust even a small part of their lifestyles to alleviate climate change. Everyone likes to think that the solution to climate change is for other people, for corporations and for government to change what they're doing.

The way that our economy works, the foods that we eat, the price we pay for electricity and services we take for granted, all of these things must change if we want to protect the environment and live in a sustainable manner. That or a massive technological leap must take place to solve all our energy and nutritional needs and allow us to live as we currently do.

I'm all for this tax. Beef, dairy and other farming and agriculture practices should be taxed to the extent that their environmental impact is priced in. As someone else has suggested, the revenue from that tax can be used to finance alternative sources of nutrition and to finance research into synthetic foods.

 

[evilromero]

It would basically price most meats out of many households, but after reading a line like this



its hard to say no to such a measure.

Yet highly guarded worldviews will say no. Even from level-headed people in this thread.

 

[Unhandled Exception]

Yet highly guarded worldviews will say no. Even from level-headed people in this thread.

Brain imbalances tend to lead to being self centered and leave people unwilling to consider, even for an instant, that they are the problem. Anyone who can read the facts presented on this issue and still oppose this tax have a brain imbalance and need help.

 

[Moose Biscuits]

So basically your whims are more important than the massive impact they have on the planet.

To me they are. Obviously not to the rest of the planet, but most of the rest of the planet doesn't care about me so why should I care about them?

 

[AbsolutBro]

You made absolutely zero difference by doing that.

You might want to carefully reread the post you quoted.

 

[Unhandled Exception]

To me they are. Obviously not to the rest of the planet, but most of the rest of the planet doesn't care about me so why should I care about them?

You have a brain imbalance. I'm sorry you're suffering, but it doesn't have to be this way. Help starts with you choosing to get help because you love yourself, and because you deserve to feel better. Basing your life's choices on anger and pain is choosing to twist in the wind. You don't care about yourself, you care about being sick and staying sick. It doesn't have to stay that way and you get to make that choice.

 

[Cyframe]

We can talk about these types of taxes, once we address issues regarding things like food deserts. It's not simple or easy to adjust eating habits we've had so long and taxings those who don't have the means or education to change rapidly isn't the way to do it.

I live in the city and grocery stores are hard to come by that are close. In rural areas you didn't have much choice. We need to address this.

 

[Kthulhu]

These feel-good posts about conscious consumerism (ie voting with your dollar) for climate change kinda ignore fact that it doesn't really do anything rather than stealth brag privilege + elitism.

You need to get more involved than just doing that.

This is another thing. Consumers can't do shit about climate change. It's corporations and governments that are doing the polluting.

 

[SomTervo]

To me they are. Obviously not to the rest of the planet, but most of the rest of the planet doesn't care about me so why should I care about them?

And so thought the majority of humans on the planet

And so, decades later, countless numbers of their descendants died due to this stubborn short-term pleasure seeking after our present day choices - climate change due to terrible industries like the meat industry; superbugs which developed thanks to animal farming; the collapse of huge food-chain ecologies thanks to human influence, etc - led to countless famines, loss of land, greater pollution, etc.

Your act matters.

This is another thing. Consumers can't do shit about climate change. It's corporations and governments that are doing the polluting.

I don't quite understand the logic here. In theory if everyone went vegan the meat and dairy industries would die out immediately (of course a totally unrealistic scenario) and thus simply not buying meat and dairy would have been crucial to making the change?

Of course in realistic terms it's a slow burn series of events rather than an immediate "everyone went vegan" narrative

Edit: oh right, I think i get it – you mean the biggest slices of climate change like energy and stuff? Right, fair enough. This would still make a big hit, though.

 

[Slayven]

We can talk about these types of taxes, once we address issues regarding things like food deserts. It's not simple or easy to adjust eating habits we've had so long and taxings those who don't have the means or education to change rapidly isn't the way to do it.

I live in the city and grocery stores are hard to come by that are close. In rural areas you didn't have much choice. We neee to address this.

So much this.

 

[Wafflecakes]

Lol yes... lets pass more regressive taxes that disproportionally affect the poor. Sounds like a plan.

 

[AbsolutBro]

Those are actually pretty fine. Chicken in particular has a co2 footprint that's as low as many vegetarian options.

You should minimise the pork for health reasons, though. All red meat is fairly carcinogenic. Bacon and sausages in particular, I'm afraid.

I feel like charts like these are slightly misleading in that they focus solely on the meat/food production of the animals in question. For instance, for cows it focuses purely on the meat and milk, ignoring the leather, bone and other uses that each carcass gets. It also focuses solely on the HUMAN consumption of the animals, ignoring parts that are consumed by other creatures (e.g.: dog food uses).

Armour makes hot dogs, but they also supply Thyroid medication for people (such as my mother, sister or coworkers) whose thyroid function is either reduced or even completely gone.

Basically if you look solely at human consumption, sure those numbers are bad, but they also ignore all the other things that utilize the animal in question. It's like the whole "x gallons of water for 1 pound of meat vs vegetables" argument. Sure, it takes more water for a pound of meat than a pound of broccoli, but you get more than just meat from a cow or pig.


Also the US should switch from cows to buffalo, but that's a whole other argument.

 

[Alcotholic]

Dont tax Dairy. I need dairy.

 

[Stumpokapow]

I think over the long term, most things should be priced to include their externalities, including power production, cars, food, electionics, etc, and including all negative externalities, not just climate burden. This is good both because it incentivizes good consumer behaviour, and it incentivizes businesses to optimize around reducing externalities rather than pretending they don't exist. The actual details of implementations are much less important to me.

Personally I do eat meat but it is very obvious that things are out of balance in North America.

 

[Moose Biscuits]

And so thought the majority of humans on the planet

And so, decades later, countless numbers of their descendants died due to this stubborn short-term pleasure seeking after climate change, superbugs which developed thanks to animal farming, the collapse of huge food-chain ecologies thanks to human influence, etc.

You act matters.

If the majority of the population thinks it, then why change? I go to the effort of changing my lifestyle, go without a bunch of stuff I enjoy, a majority never does and we still all die. Except I die unhappier than if I hadn't given up the stuff I like.

 

[SomTervo]

If the majority of the population thinks it, then why change? I go to the effort of changing my lifestyle, go without a bunch of stuff I enjoy, a majority never does and we still all die. Except I die unhappier than if I hadn't given up the stuff I like.

Well... that got Nihilist quickly

 

[SomTervo]

I feel like charts like these are slightly misleading in that they focus solely on the meat/food production of the animals in question. For instance, for cows it focuses purely on the meat and milk, ignoring the leather, bone and other uses that each carcass gets. It also focuses solely on the HUMAN consumption of the animals, ignoring parts that are consumed by other creatures (e.g.: dog food uses).

Armour makes hot dogs, but they also supply Thyroid medication for people (such as my mother, sister or coworkers) whose thyroid function is either reduced or even completely gone.

Basically if you look solely at human consumption, sure those numbers are bad, but they also ignore all the other things that utilize the animal in question. It's like the whole "x gallons of water for 1 pound of meat vs vegetables" argument. Sure, it takes more water for a pound of meat than a pound of broccoli, but you get more than just meat from a cow or pig.


Also the US should switch from cows to buffalo, but that's a whole other argument.

A key point on top of those stats though is that almost everything you mention has a non-meat/dairy alternative. There are alternatives to everything you mention that we can either synthetically produce or use vegetables for instead. The entire question is becoming increasingly optional - and meat/dairy are painfully inefficient to produce and maintain. - we can immediately slice the environment cost down just by avoiding the waste. Meat/dairy take so much more water, etc, which is also going to become a huge problem.

 

[Moose Biscuits]

I mean, I know I'm being selfish. And on the upside for you guys, because I'm so lazy, if you decide to force change via taxes and laws and the like I probably won't put the effort into changing it. Either I'll put up with it or take up something else self destructive.

So go ahead, put forward the tax. You're probably right, it is better.

 

[Flo_Evans]

lol this is why we are gonna die.

Joe blow redneck driving his super duty is an asshole and needs to stop it, but fuck paying the true cost of my double bacon cheeseburger!

 

[MsKrisp]

Unfortunately this would cripple poor families. You'll have to find a way to reduce meat consumption without risking nutritional deficiencies that milk and meat are able to cheaply provide.

 

[Linkstrikesback]

Maybe not to you, but to me, this tax is insane and should be fought.

I always find it incredible that there are people who would rather see the world submerged than pay 40% more for beef (in this case).

I love beef, it's the best meat, but the planet has to come first. That you'd make this the thing that pushes you over the edge in to activism is pretty sad, given all the other terrible stuff going on actually worth protesting.

 

[evilromero]

Dont tax Dairy. I need dairy.

For what?

 

[SomTervo]

Lol yes... lets pass more regressive taxes that disproportionally affect the poor. Sounds like a plan.

Go ahead and explain how a steak (probably like £3-4 over here) or w/e is cheaper than a sweet potato, some brown rice, some broccoli and a beetroot (like £2.50 at a stretch)

Unfortunately this would cripple poor families. You'll have to find a way to reduce meat consumption without risking nutritional deficiencies that milk and meat are able to cheaply provide.

How???

We've been vegan for about 8 months and have cut costs drastically!

Also remember that the only reason meat/dairy is so cheap is that the grain that feeds the animals subsidised hugely. If we subsidised the production of vegetables and grains as much as we do meat, veg would be even cheaper than it is (largely already cheap)

 

[Xe4]

Not a valid reason to oppose this. It's not a necessity for you. It doesn't hurt the poor since most quality meat is quite pricy anyways. Unless you're talking about that Hamburger from McDonalds

It abso-fucking-lutely hurts the poor. All food taxes do. You still think it's worth it, that's fine, but let's not pretend a meat tax won't have any downside.

These articles are from 2015 and 2016? I'm also... not sure about this claim. The articles even contradict themselves on this. (Graph is from the EPA)

Interesting that farming internationally would be so much more wasteful than the US. Synthetic beef will hopefully pick up the slack, eventually... If you can convince people to eat it. The next time someone starts to talk about "cow farts" as a source for global warming, do mention that there is plenty of pollution from agriculture already without needing to make jokes of it.

The article is fucking bullshit when it states that animal agriculture contributes more than transportation. At best it contributes half as much forcing than transoprtation, and that's taking the low end for transportation and high end fore meat production.

See here:https://www.skepticalscience.com/how-much-meat-contribute-to-gw.html

Not really a contradiction there - US vs Worldwide. Remember a lot of Amazon rainforest has been burned for livestock (and soy). For something like Cattle you need a lot of water, and a lot of feed. A lot of resources goes into that feed.

As for a tax - a carbon tax has long been pitched, as it would be the most fair to the most industries and would provide a consistent, predictable cost. Taxing individual things leads to playing favorites.

This is true as well. The total of agriculture AGW forcing is higher than just meat production, particularly worldwide because of bring of rainforests in Indonesia and elsewhere.

 

[Wafflecakes]

Go ahead and explain how a steak (probably like £3-4 over here) or w/e is cheaper than a sweet potato, some brown rice, some broccoli and a beetroot (like £2.50 at a stretch)



How???

We've been vegan for about 8 months and have cut costs drastically!

No amount of rationalization makes it not a regressive tax. A tax on almost any food is regressive by definition.

You also present an absurd straw man by comparing a premium animal product with a high price to stuff that is low price, even for a plant product. Glad to know that you are not even vaguely interested in legit discussion though.

Edit:
The fact is that for most the tax is not going to change their eating habits. If the tax is substantial enough to FORCE people to stop eating animal products then we just have a situation where animal products are a luxury for the wealthy, further expanding the gap between the rich and poor in our society.

 

[old]

I can't live without steak, burgers, and chili. Let's use some of that "GMO" shit to make cows who fart less.

 

[pastrami]

These feel-good posts about conscious consumerism (ie voting with your dollar) for climate change kinda ignore fact that it doesn't really do anything rather than stealth brag privilege + elitism.

You need to get more involved than just doing that.

From the page you linked: "Beyond making big lifestyle decisions such as choosing to live in a dense urban area with public transportation, cutting red meat out of your diet, and having fewer children (or none at all), there are diminishing returns to the energy you put into avoiding plastic or making sure your old AAs end up in the appropriate receptacle. "

 

[op_ivy]

Yes. Do it.

 

[Stumpokapow]

The fact is that for most the tax is not going to change their eating habits. If the tax is substantial enough to FORCE people to stop eating animal products then we just have a situation where animal products are a luxury for the wealthy, further expanding the gap between the rich and poor in our society.

You're missing the supply side of this equation -- taxes and subsidies on corporate behaviours create incentives for companies to do things. If a product has a tax on its production because it produces a negative externality, companies have an incentive to either not produce that thing, diversify, or learn to produce that thing with less of the negative externality. Looking at business just from a demand side is missing the forest for the trees.

 

[R10Neymarfan]

Unfortunately this would cripple poor families. You'll have to find a way to reduce meat consumption without risking nutritional deficiencies that milk and meat are able to cheaply provide.

Nope wrong. Leafy Greens and Legumes, Starches/Grains more than make up the nutrition content plus benefit of being vastly cheaper, less caloric, and better for the body.

 

[Wafflecakes]

You're missing the supply side of this equation -- taxes and subsidies on corporate behaviours create incentives for companies to do things. If a product has a tax on its production because it produces a negative externality, companies have an incentive to either not produce that thing, diversify, or learn to produce that thing with less of the negative externality. Looking at business just from a demand side is missing the forest for the trees.

Then do it with tax breaks or incentives for healthy foods, not taxes that punch poor people in the groin in the name of liberal utopia.

 

[Linkstrikesback]

The fact is that for most the tax is not going to change their eating habits. If the tax is substantial enough to FORCE people to stop eating animal products then we just have a situation where animal products are a luxury for the wealthy, further expanding the gap between the rich and poor in our society.

I'd bet this is untrue. Anyone know of any countries that have recently made a similar tax hike on meats to compare with?

Obviously not the same case, but I heard the same rhetoric about introducing the bag tax in England (charge 5p for a bag in supermarkets now), lots of people were against it before, then it happened, and as it turned out, people still went out shopping, just they changed behaviour. I don't see why, if beef is taxed more, people won't just change to similar but cheaper alternatives e,g. eating chicken more often instead of beef.

Then do it with tax breaks or incentives for healthy foods, not taxes that punch poor people in the groin in the name of liberal utopia.

"The liberal utopia" = a world with reduced effects of global warming. Yeah. Sure. OK.

 

[Xe4]

Nope wrong. Leafy Greens and Legumes, Starches/Grains more than make up the nutrition content plus benefit of being vastly cheaper, less caloric, and better for the body.

Anyone who has been to a Wal-Mart knows this is wrong. In a pure standpoint where everything is made from scratch, sure. But comparing quick and easy meals that include meat and are less healthy with those that are absent meat and are healty, the price difference is stark and meat is easily cheaper.

If everyone had the ability of an hour to prepare a meal each night it may be cheaper to not have meat, but the fact is many poor don't have that luxury.

 

[mike6467]

I'm still holding out for lab produced meat that is, for all intents, chicken/beef/pork without needing the animal. I know there's attempts being made at this, but I don't know how realistic they are. It really seems like it's the best of both worlds.

Though you might have trouble convincing people that lab grown meat was "natural." Frankly I wouldn't care if the taste and nutrition profile was all in line.

 

[Wafflecakes]

"The liberal utopia" = a world with reduced effects of global warming. Yeah. Sure. OK.

So it is ok to just go "fuck the poor" because the ends justify the means?

As I already said. I am fine with the goals of the legislation (more veg... less meat). I just think regressive taxation is the wrong route to take to achieve those goals.




If they insist on taking the route of taxing these foods it should be coupled with a corresponding tax cut on other food items to 0 out the negative impacts on the poor.

 

[Deleted member 17706]

Then do it with tax breaks or incentives for healthy foods, not taxes that punch poor people in the groin in the name of liberal utopia.

Good luck getting any kind of agreement on what healthy foods are.

 

[R10Neymarfan]

Anyone who has been to a Wal-Mart knows this is wrong. In a pure standpoint where everything is made from scratch, sure. But comparing quick and easy meals that include meat and are less healthy with those that are absent meat and are healty, the price difference is stark and meat is easily cheaper.

If everyone had the ability of an hour to prepare a meal each night it may be cheaper to not have meat, but the fact is many poor don't have that luxury.

You talking about difference in pre-packaged processed and name branded foods. I'm talking about whole foods. Especially when bought in bulk and consumed over time.

 

[Wafflecakes]

Good luck getting any kind of agreement on what healthy foods are.

Irrelevant to the discussion since there is a 0% chance of this bill being agreed upon either, at least in any meaningful way.

 

[rokkerkory]

I think there needs to be someone in place to help curb the carbon footprint of red meat. Unsure if taxes are the way.

 

[Xe4]

You talking about difference in pre-packaged processed and name branded foods. I'm talking about whole foods. Especially when bought in bulk and consumed over time.

Again, that's not something many poor people, those who are living paycheck to paycheck, can do. Increasing the price on meat is going to fuck them.

 

[Maintenance]

raising the price of beef by 40 percent would lead to a 13 percent decrease in consumption.

Lmao, no shit. 40% is insane.

 

[midramble]

If only we could make a consumption tax a progressive tax.

Orwellian system of entering your SSN in order to purchase meat/dairy products.
Meat and dairy sales have to be regulated through well equiped sellers or farmers markets have to start carrying swipe card systems and follow regulations for using the SSN system.
Adds on to your tax at the end of the year.
W-4s now have a witholding field for dairy and meat consumption.

Or let people track it themselves like normal taxes.
Everyone starts claiming to be vegan and gets audited on their veganism.
Sales of black market beef and chicken.

Like that comic Chew.

 

[Wafflecakes]

If only we could make a consumption tax a progressive tax.

Orwellian system of entering your SSN in order to purchase meat/dairy products.
Meat and dairy sales have to be regulated through well equiped sellers or farmers markets have to start carrying swipe card systems and follow regulations for using the SSN system.
Adds on to your tax at the end of the year.
W-4s now have a witholding field for dairy and meat consumption.

Or let people track it themselves like normal taxes.
Everyone starts claiming to be vegan and gets audited on their veganism.
Sales of black market beef and chicken.

Like that comic Chew.

I know you are making a joke here, but that would still be a regressive tax.