7 ms·

This is a perfect example of why "sin taxes" like the proposed tax on meat[1][2] to fight climate change are a bad idea. You need to tax the externality (green

by avar 8y ago

This is a perfect example of why "sin taxes" like the proposed tax on meat[1][2] to fight climate change are a bad idea. You need to tax the externality (greenhouse gas emissions), not an activity which currently causes such emissions, because then you don't have any incentives left (such as in this case) for industries to reduce those emissions. 1. https://www.theguardian.com/environment/2017/dec/11/meat-tax-inevitable-to-beat-climate-and-health-crises-says-report https://www.theguardian.com/environment/2017/dec/11/meat-tax... 2. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Meat_tax https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Meat_tax

Joe-Z 8y ago
Of course the remaining sin being treating animals like a commodity, making them suffer, driving them around in crowded conditions for hundreds of miles... It‘s not just the environment that suffers from our industrialized way to produce meat
- cal97g 8y ago
  yawn
- avar 8y ago
  That's another good example. Tax that, and you create an incentive to either eat "dumber" meat like fish instead of pigs, or meat where you've avoided the "sin" altogether. Such as lab-grown meat.
  - SwellJoe 8y ago
    So, why would that be a negative outcome?
    - fossuser 8y ago
      It's not - I think OP is saying tax the animal suffering, not the eating of meat generally.
- soperj 8y ago
  I feel the same way about vegetables. Cutting down in the prime of their life, and shipping them to stores across the country packed in crates. It's unconscionable.
  - xvector 8y ago
    Vegetables are not conscious, and they cannot feel and interpret pain. Taking your logic, I can extend your argument in the opposite direction towards humans. But I have a feeling no one would condone that!
sparrc 8y ago
That gets a bit more complicated though, greenhouse gas emissions through burping is just one of the many impacts cattle have on the planet: land usage, water usage, manure (harms water supplies, runoff, release gasses, etc), and then you have the knock-on impacts of all the feed that needs to be produced to feed them.
- theptip 8y ago
  Your point is correct, but you can apply it in the other direction; adding a sin tax also has knock-on effects and often produce unexpected market distortions. I think your point just argues for pricing in more externalities, rather than abandoning the goal of pricing them and using even more opaque sin taxes instead.
  - sparrc 8y ago
    True but I think some of these issues are also fundamentally harder to tax. Everything uses land and water, the problem is how much cattle use per calorie produced. I suppose you're saying we should tax usage of these things based on calorie produced?
    - avar 8y ago
      Nothing needs to be taxed based on calorie produced. For the purposes of sustainability you tax externalities. Whether that's releasing carbon into the atmosphere, or whatever it costs to fix the land or water you're polluting. If you're polluting as much as your neighbor but producing fewer calories you'll make less money, so market forces will take care of that and you'll be more likely to go out of business. There's no need to tax anything based on caloric production for the purposes of taxing pollution. That of course assumes that you're producing the same product as your neighbor, but maybe he's making dogfood and you're making Kobe beef. Then it's OK for your business if you're producing fewer calories per unit of pollution.
      - sparrc 8y ago
        Right, my point is that producing any type of meat consumes excessive amounts of land vs other forms of producing food, I guess what I'm asking is: how do you classify 'land' as an externality?
resters 8y ago
Great point about taxing the externalities. Also, I think that elected officials with the livestock facilities in their jurisdictions should be required to live (or spend a significant amount of time) downwind of the facilities.
jakobegger 8y ago
Some externalities are hard to tax. For example, consumption of red meat probably increases cancer risk [1]. We can't introduce a tax on cancer, but we still want to reduce the occurrence of cancer, so all that's left is taxing red meat. [1]: http://www.who.int/features/qa/cancer-red-meat/en/ http://www.who.int/features/qa/cancer-red-meat/en/
- freedomben 8y ago
  What about letting people make their own choices without trying to social engineer them, which is essentially forcing our values onto them?
  - msg 8y ago
    "But temperance also can be created by coercion. Taxing is a good coercive device. To keep downtown shoppers temperate in their use of parking space we introduce parking meters for short periods, and traffic fines for longer ones. We need not actually forbid a citizen to park as long as he wants to; we need merely make it increasingly expensive for him to do so. Not prohibition, but carefully biased options are what we offer him. A Madison Avenue man might call this persuasion; I prefer the greater candor of the word coercion." -- The Tragedy of the Commons I recommend the whole paper as a good think on the unintended consequences of not biasing the options of people away from collective irresponsibility.
  - jakobegger 8y ago
    Because their choices have consequences for others. You might not care about some health risk, but when you get sick, your family is going to be affected, your coworkers are going to be affected, and society has to pay for you to get well (by paying more for health insurance). And we're social animals. We care about one another. And caring sometimes means that we nudge people into a direction that makes them healthier. (I don't actually know if red meat is dangerous enough to justify a tax, but for the sake of argument, let's assume it is)
- briandear 8y ago
  Why not tax cancer? If I eat red meat and don’t get cancer, then why am I paying an extra tax? It isn’t like my red meat consumption is causing other people to get cancer.

by avar 8y ago

Joe-Z 8y ago

Of course the remaining sin being treating animals like a commodity, making them suffer, driving them around in crowded conditions for hundreds of miles... It‘s not just the environment that suffers from our industrialized way to produce meat

cal97g 8y ago
yawn
avar 8y ago
That's another good example. Tax that, and you create an incentive to either eat "dumber" meat like fish instead of pigs, or meat where you've avoided the "sin" altogether. Such as lab-grown meat.
- SwellJoe 8y ago
  So, why would that be a negative outcome?
  - fossuser 8y ago
    It's not - I think OP is saying tax the animal suffering, not the eating of meat generally.
soperj 8y ago
I feel the same way about vegetables. Cutting down in the prime of their life, and shipping them to stores across the country packed in crates. It's unconscionable.
- xvector 8y ago
  Vegetables are not conscious, and they cannot feel and interpret pain. Taking your logic, I can extend your argument in the opposite direction towards humans. But I have a feeling no one would condone that!

sparrc 8y ago

That gets a bit more complicated though, greenhouse gas emissions through burping is just one of the many impacts cattle have on the planet: land usage, water usage, manure (harms water supplies, runoff, release gasses, etc), and then you have the knock-on impacts of all the feed that needs to be produced to feed them.

theptip 8y ago
Your point is correct, but you can apply it in the other direction; adding a sin tax also has knock-on effects and often produce unexpected market distortions. I think your point just argues for pricing in more externalities, rather than abandoning the goal of pricing them and using even more opaque sin taxes instead.
- sparrc 8y ago
  True but I think some of these issues are also fundamentally harder to tax. Everything uses land and water, the problem is how much cattle use per calorie produced. I suppose you're saying we should tax usage of these things based on calorie produced?
  - avar 8y ago
    Nothing needs to be taxed based on calorie produced. For the purposes of sustainability you tax externalities. Whether that's releasing carbon into the atmosphere, or whatever it costs to fix the land or water you're polluting. If you're polluting as much as your neighbor but producing fewer calories you'll make less money, so market forces will take care of that and you'll be more likely to go out of business. There's no need to tax anything based on caloric production for the purposes of taxing pollution. That of course assumes that you're producing the same product as your neighbor, but maybe he's making dogfood and you're making Kobe beef. Then it's OK for your business if you're producing fewer calories per unit of pollution.
    - sparrc 8y ago
      Right, my point is that producing any type of meat consumes excessive amounts of land vs other forms of producing food, I guess what I'm asking is: how do you classify 'land' as an externality?

resters 8y ago

Great point about taxing the externalities. Also, I think that elected officials with the livestock facilities in their jurisdictions should be required to live (or spend a significant amount of time) downwind of the facilities.

jakobegger 8y ago

Some externalities are hard to tax. For example, consumption of red meat probably increases cancer risk [1]. We can't introduce a tax on cancer, but we still want to reduce the occurrence of cancer, so all that's left is taxing red meat. [1]: http://www.who.int/features/qa/cancer-red-meat/en/ http://www.who.int/features/qa/cancer-red-meat/en/

freedomben 8y ago
What about letting people make their own choices without trying to social engineer them, which is essentially forcing our values onto them?
- msg 8y ago
  "But temperance also can be created by coercion. Taxing is a good coercive device. To keep downtown shoppers temperate in their use of parking space we introduce parking meters for short periods, and traffic fines for longer ones. We need not actually forbid a citizen to park as long as he wants to; we need merely make it increasingly expensive for him to do so. Not prohibition, but carefully biased options are what we offer him. A Madison Avenue man might call this persuasion; I prefer the greater candor of the word coercion." -- The Tragedy of the Commons I recommend the whole paper as a good think on the unintended consequences of not biasing the options of people away from collective irresponsibility.
- jakobegger 8y ago
  Because their choices have consequences for others. You might not care about some health risk, but when you get sick, your family is going to be affected, your coworkers are going to be affected, and society has to pay for you to get well (by paying more for health insurance). And we're social animals. We care about one another. And caring sometimes means that we nudge people into a direction that makes them healthier. (I don't actually know if red meat is dangerous enough to justify a tax, but for the sake of argument, let's assume it is)
briandear 8y ago
Why not tax cancer? If I eat red meat and don’t get cancer, then why am I paying an extra tax? It isn’t like my red meat consumption is causing other people to get cancer.