5 ms·

I prefer figuring out how to incorporate the externalities instead of banning/quitting things. Meat at twice the price would probably solve the problem.

EGreg 9y ago
Yeah good luck achieving that using pure capitalism. Unless you liberate all the farm animals by buying them out. You need regulations to prevent factory farming!
- taysic 9y ago
  We can start by removing subsidies. Amount US taxpayers spend yearly to subsidize meat and dairy : $38 billion To subsidize fruits and vegetables : $17 million US retail price of a pound of chicken in 1935 (adjusted for inflation) : $5.07 In 2011 : $1.34 Pounds of chicken eaten annually per American in 1935 : 9 In 2011 : 56 Revenue collected by US fishing industry per pound of fish caught : $0.59 Portion of this figure funded by taxpayers as subsidies : $0.28 https://meatonomics.com/2013/08/22/meatonomics-index/ https://meatonomics.com/2013/08/22/meatonomics-index/
  - tertius 9y ago
    Comparing current day consumption to a single year in the past reeks of bias.
    - taysic 9y ago
      What kind of bias? I copy pasted a cluster of lines from that page, but the sources themselves are well documented, mainly from the gov itself. Anyway here's another source that shows that meat consumption has dramatically increased since the 1920s, though that wasn't my central point: http://www.npr.org/sections/thesalt/2012/06/27/155527365/visualizing-a-nation-of-meat-eaters http://www.npr.org/sections/thesalt/2012/06/27/155527365/vis...
      - tertius 9y ago
        Example: I want to show that there is a lot more murder today than before because of guns. I pick one year (a far edge of the bell curve type of year) to compare to today where there was the least amount of murders and compare it to day. Without showing an average or showing even a distribution bias should be expected. There is very little reason for picking a single year to these types of arguments and it is too often done.
        EGreg 9y ago
        Didn't conservatives do this with global warming? Except they took the hottest year 1998 as a starting point to say warming isn't happening https://www.climaterealityproject.org/blog/three-ways-climate-deniers-cherry-pick-facts-about-climate-change https://www.climaterealityproject.org/blog/three-ways-climat...
krtkush 9y ago
My bet is on lab produced meat.
- reitanqild 9y ago
  FWIW earlier this year I ate something soy based that felt and tasted like pork.
sosborn 9y ago
> Meat at twice the price would probably solve the problem. While true, it basically sends the message of "If you have enough money you are free to do what you please to the detriment of the planet."
- abraae 9y ago
  Although it sounds outrageous when you say it like that, its pragmatic, and fits us as a species. I'd like petrol to be 3 or 4 times the cost it is now. That would greatly reduce emissions, but fossil fuels could still be used in situations where there was no alternative (long distance flight, huge earthmoving machines?). Inevitably, rich jerks would continue to ride their jetskis. So what? You can't legislate people to have the right attitude. But taxing things does drive bulk behaviour.
  - KGIII 9y ago
    Some of those giant earth-movers, like the tracked mining equipment that fills a giant mining-sized dump truck, are already powered by electricity that is generated on-site. They have big giant cables that trail behind them. I mention this just to share that there is some chance of this improving, even in areas we might not think likely. If it is a long-term mining operation (short-term someday, perhaps) then I can't think of a technical reason that prevents wind and solar being used to generate the on-site electricity. A recent HN article was about one of the mining dump trucks being powered by battery and using regenerative braking to mean it was able to charge itself. Those giant diggers are already using braking in their cables that power their shovels. Maybe there is something to capture there, as well. In my work, I had the chance to deal with some riggers and some crane operators (smaller stuff) by just exposure while collecting data. During that exposure, I learned something new. Lifting the stuff up is actually pretty easy. It is putting it down that is difficult. Maybe there is some energy to capture in that process?
    - abraae 9y ago
      That sounds pretty cool. I guess there will be a lot of mining for lithium in the future.

EGreg 9y ago

Yeah good luck achieving that using pure capitalism. Unless you liberate all the farm animals by buying them out. You need regulations to prevent factory farming!

taysic 9y ago
We can start by removing subsidies. Amount US taxpayers spend yearly to subsidize meat and dairy : $38 billion To subsidize fruits and vegetables : $17 million US retail price of a pound of chicken in 1935 (adjusted for inflation) : $5.07 In 2011 : $1.34 Pounds of chicken eaten annually per American in 1935 : 9 In 2011 : 56 Revenue collected by US fishing industry per pound of fish caught : $0.59 Portion of this figure funded by taxpayers as subsidies : $0.28 https://meatonomics.com/2013/08/22/meatonomics-index/ https://meatonomics.com/2013/08/22/meatonomics-index/
- tertius 9y ago
  Comparing current day consumption to a single year in the past reeks of bias.
  - taysic 9y ago
    What kind of bias? I copy pasted a cluster of lines from that page, but the sources themselves are well documented, mainly from the gov itself. Anyway here's another source that shows that meat consumption has dramatically increased since the 1920s, though that wasn't my central point: http://www.npr.org/sections/thesalt/2012/06/27/155527365/visualizing-a-nation-of-meat-eaters http://www.npr.org/sections/thesalt/2012/06/27/155527365/vis...
    - tertius 9y ago
      Example: I want to show that there is a lot more murder today than before because of guns. I pick one year (a far edge of the bell curve type of year) to compare to today where there was the least amount of murders and compare it to day. Without showing an average or showing even a distribution bias should be expected. There is very little reason for picking a single year to these types of arguments and it is too often done.
      - EGreg 9y ago
        Didn't conservatives do this with global warming? Except they took the hottest year 1998 as a starting point to say warming isn't happening https://www.climaterealityproject.org/blog/three-ways-climate-deniers-cherry-pick-facts-about-climate-change https://www.climaterealityproject.org/blog/three-ways-climat...

krtkush 9y ago

My bet is on lab produced meat.

reitanqild 9y ago
FWIW earlier this year I ate something soy based that felt and tasted like pork.

sosborn 9y ago

> Meat at twice the price would probably solve the problem. While true, it basically sends the message of "If you have enough money you are free to do what you please to the detriment of the planet."

abraae 9y ago
Although it sounds outrageous when you say it like that, its pragmatic, and fits us as a species. I'd like petrol to be 3 or 4 times the cost it is now. That would greatly reduce emissions, but fossil fuels could still be used in situations where there was no alternative (long distance flight, huge earthmoving machines?). Inevitably, rich jerks would continue to ride their jetskis. So what? You can't legislate people to have the right attitude. But taxing things does drive bulk behaviour.
- KGIII 9y ago
  Some of those giant earth-movers, like the tracked mining equipment that fills a giant mining-sized dump truck, are already powered by electricity that is generated on-site. They have big giant cables that trail behind them. I mention this just to share that there is some chance of this improving, even in areas we might not think likely. If it is a long-term mining operation (short-term someday, perhaps) then I can't think of a technical reason that prevents wind and solar being used to generate the on-site electricity. A recent HN article was about one of the mining dump trucks being powered by battery and using regenerative braking to mean it was able to charge itself. Those giant diggers are already using braking in their cables that power their shovels. Maybe there is something to capture there, as well. In my work, I had the chance to deal with some riggers and some crane operators (smaller stuff) by just exposure while collecting data. During that exposure, I learned something new. Lifting the stuff up is actually pretty easy. It is putting it down that is difficult. Maybe there is some energy to capture in that process?
  - abraae 9y ago
    That sounds pretty cool. I guess there will be a lot of mining for lithium in the future.