5 ms·
Unlike cars and travel it's hard to make the argument that humans depend on access to meat so making it 700% more expensive via tax would effectively shift cons
by danieldk 7y ago
Unlike cars and travel it's hard to make the argument that humans depend on access to meat so making it 700% more expensive via tax would effectively shift consumption patterns with few if any downsides.
The problem is that no politician (perhaps outside green parties) wants to do this, because of the fear of becoming unpopular. We simultaneously need a shift in people's attitudes towards meat.
I have been a vegetarian since I was 17 (I am 37 now). It has always fascinated me that becoming a vegetarian was only very little effort, but somehow people are extremely attached to meat. I never talk about being a vegetarian, but when people find out that I am a vegetarian, they often acts as being offended and having to defend themselves.
We need to show people that there is a middle way where you can still eat meat (e.g. maybe once a week) but still drastically decrease their footprint.
- K0nserv 7y agoThis is the unfortunate truth and it's particularly bad beause the rich western countries that contribute the most to climate change will, in many instances, be the last to feel the effects. This in combination with decmoractic elections has the consequence that iniatives aimed at tackling climate change, all of which will have a negative impact on people's lives(percieved or not), will never be viable politics for any politcian who wants to stay in office.
- C1sc0cat 7y agoActually in recent decades its rapidly developing countries like China and India that have seen massive increases in meat eating.
- K0nserv 7y agoThat's to be expected with increasing wealth in those countries and while I said a lot of western countries need to make adjustment it's also true for growing economies like China and Indias as well.
- ensiferum 7y agoBecause many vegetarians have elitist approach and meat eating people feel judged so they become defensive.