6 ms·
The Case for a Carbon Tax on Beef
- darawk 9y agoWhy don't we just put a carbon tax on...carbon?
- unit91 9y agoDo you realize this would tax people for breathing?
- p1necone 9y agoAssuming a "Tax" is an extra percentage amount on money paid in exchange for goods/services: no this would not tax people for breathing, unless you know of someone who already pays for the privilege of breathing.
- darawk 9y agoI'm fine with that. Breathing is a negative externality. If someone were to actually include breathing, it'd be an incredibly small amount relative to other human activities.
- Robotbeat 9y agoNo, it wouldn’t as breathing is basically carbon neutral (on largely vegetarian diets).
- Robotbeat 9y agoI have to pay the sewer department for crapping. I get fined for crapping where I’m not supposed to. You pay for externalities where it matters.
- Gibbon1 9y agoMy thought is put a carbon sales tax on things that use carbon based fuels and use that to subsidize alternatives. So, diesel and gasoline powered cars are taxed. Gas and oil burning furnaces are taxed. Raise the taxes high enough to make alternatives worth it on a capital basis.
- temporalparts 9y agoCows consume carbon (grass, organic matter), produce carbon (methane, other organic matter), and are composed of carbon (more organic matter). Isn't the article espousing placing a carbon tax on a form of carbon?
- darawk 9y agoYa, but why wouldn't you levy this tax equally on all carbon-generative activities? Why single out cows? I'm all in favor of taxing carbon, but we should do it in a holistic way. Not one thing at a time.
- curun1r 9y agoBecause not all carbon-generative activities also produce methane, which is the real destructive part about beef. Also, some other carbon-generative activities (e.g. driving) are already taxed pretty heavily.
- SllX 9y agoDifferent emissions have different levels of global warming potential. If carbon dioxide has a global warming potential of 1, then Methane has a Global Warming Potential of 28-36 over 100 years [0]. I wouldn't even single out carbon dioxide per se. If you're going to start an emissions tax and do it right, you might as well target all green house gas emissions and base the tax rate off their global warming potential which takes into account both the energy they absorb and their longevity in the atmosphere. [0] https://www.epa.gov/ghgemissions/understanding-global-warming-potentials https://www.epa.gov/ghgemissions/understanding-global-warmin...
- tommoor 9y agoThe article explains the case for this. Meat from cattle is easily substituted, gas for heating your home less-so.
- nradov 9y ago
- spraak 9y agoNot only is is industrial agriculture a huge part of CO2 emissions, it's also one of the biggest consumers and polluters of water.
- toomuchtodo 9y agoThere is a variety of seaweed (Asparagopsis taxiformi) that reduces the methane emissions from cows by 99%: (warning: autoplay) https://www.nationalgeographic.com/people-and-culture/food/the-plate/2016/11/seaweed-may-be-the-solution-for-burping-cows/ https://www.nationalgeographic.com/people-and-culture/food/t... https://link.springer.com/article/10.1007/s10811-014-0487-z https://link.springer.com/article/10.1007/s10811-014-0487-z Would it not be easier for us to require that be included in their feed? Everyone gets the beef they want with a small increase in cost to cover seaweed supply chain costs. This does not solve the water pollution or the animal welfare issues of industrial farming (fingers crossed for "clean meat", or vat grown meat), but its a climate change shim.
- bamboozled 9y agoDon't forget deforestation, which severely amplifies the effects of climate change and the water table, for obvious reasons. In Australia this is a serious environmental issue and often the cattle industry is fighting to remove or stop land clearing laws being reinstated [1]. It's a disgusting industry on so many levels IMO. [1] https://www.theguardian.com/environment/2018/mar/05/global-deforestation-hotspot-3m-hectares-of-australian-forest-to-be-lost-in-15-years https://www.theguardian.com/environment/2018/mar/05/global-d...
- andy_ppp 9y agoI was thinking about a more interesting policy around this; let’s give everyone a meat quota (at some sustainable level) and allow them to trade their quota for cash or buy more. This would make meat very expensive but would also mean if you are going to bother it had better be good meat and additionally might be a way to supplement the income of poorer families and people... just a thought.
- dahdum 9y agoIs meat so different than other carbon producers like air travel, electronics manufacturing, or others? I think what you are proposing boils down to basic income and carbon taxes if you take it far enough.
- brm 9y agoMeat is at least more complex/interesting in that it can also directly affect things like human health. I see where you're going with this and, yes, reductio ad absurdum it boils down to basic income and carbon taxes, but meat rationing would seem to have a behavior modification component as well that the other two producers you listed don't really have beyond a superficial level. I have not yet formed an opinion for better or for worse, but thought it key to point out a potential argumentative difference.
- lern_too_spel 9y agoIt's the difference between a carbon tax on meat and carbon permits (cap and trade) on meat.
- dahdum 9y agoAhh, yeah it would be more comparable. Though I think a sin tax is more workable that getting a cap on meat legislated.
- bcherny 9y agoI mean, if you can trade your meat coupons for cash, why not just use cash in the first place?
- awt 9y agoWe are surely fortunate that the U.S. and Canadian settlers decimated the estimated 60 million head of buffalo ranging North America until the late 1800s. Global warming could have been exacerbated greatly by their continued existence.
- tommoor 9y agoConsidering there are almost 100million cattle alive in just the USA right now, I'd say that 60million 200+ years ago are pretty negligible ;) http://usda.mannlib.cornell.edu/usda/current/Catt/Catt-01-31-2018.pdf http://usda.mannlib.cornell.edu/usda/current/Catt/Catt-01-31...
- GiorgioG 9y agoA carbon tax on beef would have exactly zero impact on my consumption. It would sure reduce it at the low-end of the economic spectrum, but beyond a certain point it won’t make a difference. I’m against taxing things because they’re bad for us.
- adventured 9y agoIt'd be a belligerent, regressive tax on the bottom 2/3. There are other prime carbon tax choices that place the tax burden higher up the income scale. We should be starting there.
- cageface 9y agoEating beef, particularly industrial beef, also disproportionally damages the health of the bottom 2/3. Taxing it addresses several issues at once and hastens the day people eat less of it in favor of healthier and more environmentally friendly alternatives. It also raises awareness of just how much industrial farming contributes to greenhouse gases. Most people don't know.
- wmf 9y agoMany people suggest returning the carbon tax to the people in the form of basic income to prevent it from being regressive.
- eeZah7Ux 9y agoIf anything, wealthier people tend to eat more steak.
- username223 9y agoI'm nowhere near becoming vegetarian or biking everywhere, but I have all but given up beef for this reason. Eating a quarter-pounder is similar to burning a gallon of gas, which is shockingly worse than most other meats. Ars Technica had a good writeup awhile back: https://arstechnica.com/science/2017/10/emissions-eschmissions-how-to-simply-reduce-your-carbon-footprint-in-2017/ https://arstechnica.com/science/2017/10/emissions-eschmissio...
- utopkara 9y agoOK sure, do we also put carbon tax on wheat, and other vegetables? ~750 million tons of wheat is produced yearly, vs ~260 million tons of beef. Excepting the case of perennial plants, unused parts of vegetables (e.g. wheat straw) have a hefty carbon footprint. BTW, rice is a case in itself.
- SeeDave 9y agoFrom my understanding (which could be complete and total junk science/quackery)... wheat and other vegetables are carbon neutral. CO2 is extracted from the atmosphere, and used to grow the plants. Even unused parts (wheat straw) are a type of carbon "sink" in that the atmospheric carbon is trapped in organic matter which can be "upcycled" into paper products, etc. I believe this thought process is why corn-ethanol was so hyped, as it was sold as a 'net carbon zero' fuel. Not looking for a flamewar here, and I would be grateful if you could correct any misunderstandings I may have. I've got an 8th grade science-fair level of education on this one, so I'm more than open to your thoughts!
- Neeek 9y agoNot to mention that you need to grow the grain to feed the beef if they aren't grass fed cattle.
- maxerickson 9y agoIndustrial farming is dependent on fertilizers derived from natural gas and diesel to run tractors. No industrially produced crops are carbon neutral.
- cageface 9y agoBeef has a vastly larger carbon footprint per KG than any grain. It's the least environmentally efficient protein source there is. And that's not even factoring in wasteful and excessive use of antibiotics, pollution of water sources etc. https://www.theguardian.com/environment/2014/jul/21/giving-up-beef-reduce-carbon-footprint-more-than-cars https://www.theguardian.com/environment/2014/jul/21/giving-u...
- 9y ago
- twblalock 9y agoI'm increasingly convinced that carbon taxes, as well as cap-and-trade schemes, would end up being gamed like any other tax systems. They would create substantial complexity and harm the economy without reducing emissions by as much as expected. There are some examples in this article: https://www.scientificamerican.com/article/gaming-carbon-must-end-to-solve-global-warming/ https://www.scientificamerican.com/article/gaming-carbon-mus...
- yequalsx 9y agoCap-and-trade worked well with acid rain. As with any policy if it is not written well, is poorly enforced, or poorly implemented it will likely fail. It can be implemented well. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Acid_Rain_Program https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Acid_Rain_Program
- twblalock 9y agoThe article I cited has addressed this and dismissed it. Do you think the article was wrong?
- yequalsx 9y agoThe U.S. Acid Rain Program begun in 1995—the best example yet of how the cap-and-trade idea can work—saw allowance prices drop from more than $1,500 to less than $1 based on changes first proposed by the Bush administration. And acid rain may be less but it has not gone away. The article indicates a reduction in acid rain. It furthermore indicates that much of problems with cap and trade stem from poor execution. Anything will fail if it is poorly executed, written to allow loopholes, or is poorly regulated. I think the problem is poor governance and a populace that allows such to happen. It can work.
- SubiculumCode 9y agoIf the tax was placed as a fixed cost per pound of cattle product, regardless if its prime steak or pink goo, it would be a hard tax to game: In the end all meat products are packaged and a weight placed on it.
- 40acres 9y agoI'd suggest trying pork. I've eaten a lot of pork over the past year. It's a tasty and versatile cut & apparently very good for the environment!
- blueside 9y agoI didn't know cows could type
- timbit42 9y agoIt's not a huge stretch since they can write. Have you seen the Eat Mor Chikin signs?
- strictnein 9y agoClearly you haven't read the kids book "Click, Clack, Moo: Cows That Type". Rather good, in my opinion, and actually touches on organized labor of all things.
- timbit42 9y agoIt is good for the environment if it reduces the amount of beef eaten, but, on its own, it is not good for the environment. It is easier on the environment than beef. Chicken and turkey are easier on it than pork. Fish is easier on it than chicken.
- betterbeehome 9y agoStop trying to manipulate people with morality based taxes. Actually try and solve the problem. These people don't care about the environment. Otherwise they would completely cut subsidization to wheat & corn. Then farmers would stop feeding their cows those things, thus reducing mono-culture pollution. Make feeding them corn illegal. The cows would be healthier and they wouldn't need to subsidize pharmaceuticals for antibiotics to keep cows alive.
- cageface 9y agoThis isn't about morality or feeding wheat and corn to cows. It's about the greenhouse gas production inherent to raising beef. There's no way you're going to sustain the current volume of beef production on free range grazing alone. Industrial feeding techniques are required.
- betterbeehome 9y agoYes you can. Stop farming corn. Start farming grass. If we committed to it, it'd be possible. But it isn't BECAUSE of the government. And no this isn't about greenhouse gas production. If they cared, they would stop fracking for gas, releasing enormous amounts of methane and pollution a 1000 times worse. They just don't care about cows. Or health. Or the environment. Or even science. We've already figured out how to solve this issue. This isn't it. All they've figured out is how to get more taxes. These are morality taxes based on nonsense that would solve nothing. It blinds us to how we're farming wrong.
- oldandtired 9y agoThere is such a big hoohaa over CO2 emission. We have much more pressing concerns and about things that we cannot control. Yet there are no mitigation efforts even being discussed. The problem area is the changing magnetic fields of this planet. If any of the scenarios play, even the least problematic, then we are going to be in more trouble, more quickly than we will ever be with CO2 emissions. The Van Allen belts are a highly protective shield for this planet from highly energetic radiation (solar and cosmic). If these belts ever get destabilised then we (most life will be affected) will being facing more serious health and well-being problems than what we would ever have from CO2 emissions. All that the CO2 debate is about is distracting the general populous of this planet from more immediate problems. The beneficiaries of any carbon trading or taxation regime are not the general population.
- eeZah7Ux 9y agoIt's worth noticing that animal farming is heavily subsidized in some western country, much more than agriculture.