5 ms·

If you are seriously concerned about climate change, pressure your government to impose a large tax on beef and pay the proceeds from that tax directly to the p

by wsxcde 7y ago

If you are seriously concerned about climate change, pressure your government to impose a large tax on beef and pay the proceeds from that tax directly to the people living in the amazon basin. That will incentivize them against deforestation. Expecting poor people to voluntarily give up on the opportunity to make money because you are threatened about your children's future but can't even be arsed to reduce your own consumption of beef is wishful thinking at best.

tanto 7y ago
Wouldn't that incentivize them to sell more cattle to create more tax income and in return more proceeds to them? Also you are saying > people living in the amazon basin are the ones producing all the beef or rather some big land lords? I concur with the taxation but not paying the money to some other country - rather invest in alternatives.
- wsxcde 7y ago
  As the article says, the Amazon rain forest supplies 20% of the world's oxygen. We all need it. If we won't do what it takes to prevent the people there from killing it, we will all get exactly what we deserve. It might helpful to introspect on why you'd rather have the money spent on one side of an imaginary line the ground rather than another.
dangoor 7y ago
> If you are seriously concerned about climate change, pressure your government to impose a large tax on beef and pay the proceeds from that tax directly to the people living in the amazon basin. That will incentivize them against deforestation. But if the income they're receiving is coming from a tax on beef, wouldn't they want to produce more?
- mc32 7y ago
  Presumably the tax would make beef unpalatable to the wallet driving people to choose alternatives like chicken or lamb.
rad_gruchalski 7y ago
> If you are seriously concerned about climate change, pressure your government to impose a large tax on beef and pay the proceeds from that tax directly to the people living in the amazon basin. That will incentivize them against deforestation. Wouldn’t this incentivise beef production? They would be indirectly paid for beef. Or am I reading this wrong?
Proven 7y ago
> pressure your government to impose a large tax on beef and pay the proceeds from that tax directly to the people living in the amazon basin. That will incentivize them against deforestation. Typical HN comment: "never seen a problem which couldn't be solved by more taxation"! Why wouldn't I avoid the said tax and use saved money to buy couple acres of Amazon forest and employ private security to keep everyone off my land? It's pretty insane to assume that multiple layers (local taxation plus redistribution to other countries) of incompetent and corrupt government employees can do a better job of protecting property than actual owners.
glogla 7y ago
Beef is like 2 % of humanity's emissions. Gasoline-based transportation and electricity (mostly from coal power plants) are together like 60 %. It's obvious which one we need to focus on. Stop it with the beef already. We need data driven approach. We really really don't need hysteria based approach where something (like beef) is declared sinful. (see https://www.epa.gov/ghgemissions/sources-greenhouse-gas-emissions https://www.epa.gov/ghgemissions/sources-greenhouse-gas-emis...)
- kdmccormick 7y ago
  Regardless of emissions, beef production is contributing to this specific problem. From the article: > Much of the deforestation binge is being driven by farming pressure: The Amazon basin is the largest exporter of beef in the world, with about 200 million heads of cattle. And all those cows need a lot of space to spread out. Did you not read before telling us we need a "data-driven approach"?
- adrianN 7y ago
  Beef is a large part of the reason why the Amazon is cleared for land.
- prawn 7y ago
  Isn't that more relevant to a general climate argument than one about the world's ecological heartland being cleared with fire to raise cattle? And as an individual, isn't it possible to make small steps without huge sacrifices on both fronts?
- jdietrich 7y ago
  >Beef is like 2 % of humanity's emissions. Methane emissions from beef cattle account for about 2% of GHG potential. Tropical deforestation contributes to about 10% of our climate impact, most of which is driven by beef farming. There are also significant non-climate impacts of deforestation in terms of biodiversity. Beef is a big deal. It's not the biggest deal, but it's one of many things we need to address. Electricity generation and transport are being rapidly decarbonized thanks to new technology, but there's no technological replacement for old-growth rainforest. We can generate electricity with PV panels, we can run a car or a ship on batteries, but we don't have any sustainable option for things like jet aviation and beef; for the foreseeable future, the only option is to drastically reduce our consumption. https://www.ucsusa.org/global-warming/stop-deforestation/beef-deforestation-scorecard https://www.ucsusa.org/global-warming/stop-deforestation/bee...
esailija 7y ago
Every "wallet voter" is in a kind of "prisoner's dilemma" with each other where it won't do anything if they stop unless everyone else stops too. But if everyone else stops then they can continue. Everoyne is aiming to be the one who can continue while everyone else stops thus nothing happens. Every collective downside of any consumption (and because of requirements for infinite growth there is always collective downside no matter what) will always go away if someone is the only one doing it. So you cannot see or understand the system by looking at an individual. System that divides people into making rational individual decisions (called free market economy) without any real way to conspire co-operation is always going to result in something that is irrational for everyone as a whole. Everyone has to "defect" and for every person you convince against their self-interest to "co-operate" there will be 10 more "defecting". If you want best possible overall result you need entirely different system like centrally planned economy which for example walmart and amazon already uses. If you attempt to fix the system instead changing it entirely you will just end up making it worse because of regulatory capture. The fault I described cannot be fixed because it would be contradictory to the very foundation, so instead of actually fixing anything it will make the system even more unfair and perverted.
- tempguy9999 7y ago
  Not everyone defects, and your conclusion that "regulatory capture" is inevitable, and that us little people can do nothing, is toxic. Both are wrong. I've spent years of my life trying to change things but it is defeatists like you that are part of the problem - spreading "we're fucked anyway" memes is corrosive because it induces the exact attitude and behaviour you say will happen. Let me be clear, if the world dies we die with it and you die too - got it? So please get off your butt, stop trying to look so worldly-wise, and do something. I know, I know, it takes more effort than posting on HN. Tricky, that.
  - esailija 7y ago
    > Not everyone defects I don't think I said so. In fact I am vegan myself. I said for everyone that co-operates 10 more will defect, which is true in sentiment because meat consumption keeps rising. > we're fucked anyway Well more specifically either capitalism ends or the world ends.
yodsanklai 7y ago
> If you are seriously concerned about climate change, pressure your government to impose a large tax on beef Why not, but there are so many factors contributing to climate change that it's "suspicious" when people target one specific thing. It's quite difficult to be heard. Why should I renounce to eat beef, while other people have the right to have 3 kids, or to drive a SUV, or to fly to the other side of the world. If it was possible, it would be best to integrate the cost of externalities in what we consume, so that everyone can choose to sacrifice what they value less. But maybe if we really had to pay for externalities, they wouldn't much that we could still afford.
justaguyhere 7y ago
People love meat. I've had discussions with (otherwise) intelligent and responsible people - they suddenly turn irrational and irresponsible when talking about the amount of meat they consume and its shitty effects on everything. It is going to be really difficult to convince people to consume less meat, increase tax on meat etc. Not saying we shouldn't try, but it is a tough problem to take on.
PeterStuer 7y ago
You really think ail deforestation is driven by the poor people, and not by the Brazilian meat packing corporations JBS, BRF, Marfrig and Minerva? Slavery is still very widespread in the meat-packing industry in the region, I do not think the 'poor' have much agency in this<

by wsxcde 7y ago

tanto 7y ago

Wouldn't that incentivize them to sell more cattle to create more tax income and in return more proceeds to them? Also you are saying > people living in the amazon basin are the ones producing all the beef or rather some big land lords? I concur with the taxation but not paying the money to some other country - rather invest in alternatives.

wsxcde 7y ago
As the article says, the Amazon rain forest supplies 20% of the world's oxygen. We all need it. If we won't do what it takes to prevent the people there from killing it, we will all get exactly what we deserve. It might helpful to introspect on why you'd rather have the money spent on one side of an imaginary line the ground rather than another.

dangoor 7y ago

> If you are seriously concerned about climate change, pressure your government to impose a large tax on beef and pay the proceeds from that tax directly to the people living in the amazon basin. That will incentivize them against deforestation. But if the income they're receiving is coming from a tax on beef, wouldn't they want to produce more?

mc32 7y ago
Presumably the tax would make beef unpalatable to the wallet driving people to choose alternatives like chicken or lamb.

rad_gruchalski 7y ago

> If you are seriously concerned about climate change, pressure your government to impose a large tax on beef and pay the proceeds from that tax directly to the people living in the amazon basin. That will incentivize them against deforestation. Wouldn’t this incentivise beef production? They would be indirectly paid for beef. Or am I reading this wrong?

Proven 7y ago

> pressure your government to impose a large tax on beef and pay the proceeds from that tax directly to the people living in the amazon basin. That will incentivize them against deforestation. Typical HN comment: "never seen a problem which couldn't be solved by more taxation"! Why wouldn't I avoid the said tax and use saved money to buy couple acres of Amazon forest and employ private security to keep everyone off my land? It's pretty insane to assume that multiple layers (local taxation plus redistribution to other countries) of incompetent and corrupt government employees can do a better job of protecting property than actual owners.

glogla 7y ago

Beef is like 2 % of humanity's emissions. Gasoline-based transportation and electricity (mostly from coal power plants) are together like 60 %. It's obvious which one we need to focus on. Stop it with the beef already. We need data driven approach. We really really don't need hysteria based approach where something (like beef) is declared sinful. (see https://www.epa.gov/ghgemissions/sources-greenhouse-gas-emissions https://www.epa.gov/ghgemissions/sources-greenhouse-gas-emis...)

kdmccormick 7y ago
Regardless of emissions, beef production is contributing to this specific problem. From the article: > Much of the deforestation binge is being driven by farming pressure: The Amazon basin is the largest exporter of beef in the world, with about 200 million heads of cattle. And all those cows need a lot of space to spread out. Did you not read before telling us we need a "data-driven approach"?
adrianN 7y ago
Beef is a large part of the reason why the Amazon is cleared for land.
prawn 7y ago
Isn't that more relevant to a general climate argument than one about the world's ecological heartland being cleared with fire to raise cattle? And as an individual, isn't it possible to make small steps without huge sacrifices on both fronts?
jdietrich 7y ago
>Beef is like 2 % of humanity's emissions. Methane emissions from beef cattle account for about 2% of GHG potential. Tropical deforestation contributes to about 10% of our climate impact, most of which is driven by beef farming. There are also significant non-climate impacts of deforestation in terms of biodiversity. Beef is a big deal. It's not the biggest deal, but it's one of many things we need to address. Electricity generation and transport are being rapidly decarbonized thanks to new technology, but there's no technological replacement for old-growth rainforest. We can generate electricity with PV panels, we can run a car or a ship on batteries, but we don't have any sustainable option for things like jet aviation and beef; for the foreseeable future, the only option is to drastically reduce our consumption. https://www.ucsusa.org/global-warming/stop-deforestation/beef-deforestation-scorecard https://www.ucsusa.org/global-warming/stop-deforestation/bee...

esailija 7y ago

Every "wallet voter" is in a kind of "prisoner's dilemma" with each other where it won't do anything if they stop unless everyone else stops too. But if everyone else stops then they can continue. Everoyne is aiming to be the one who can continue while everyone else stops thus nothing happens. Every collective downside of any consumption (and because of requirements for infinite growth there is always collective downside no matter what) will always go away if someone is the only one doing it. So you cannot see or understand the system by looking at an individual. System that divides people into making rational individual decisions (called free market economy) without any real way to conspire co-operation is always going to result in something that is irrational for everyone as a whole. Everyone has to "defect" and for every person you convince against their self-interest to "co-operate" there will be 10 more "defecting". If you want best possible overall result you need entirely different system like centrally planned economy which for example walmart and amazon already uses. If you attempt to fix the system instead changing it entirely you will just end up making it worse because of regulatory capture. The fault I described cannot be fixed because it would be contradictory to the very foundation, so instead of actually fixing anything it will make the system even more unfair and perverted.

tempguy9999 7y ago
Not everyone defects, and your conclusion that "regulatory capture" is inevitable, and that us little people can do nothing, is toxic. Both are wrong. I've spent years of my life trying to change things but it is defeatists like you that are part of the problem - spreading "we're fucked anyway" memes is corrosive because it induces the exact attitude and behaviour you say will happen. Let me be clear, if the world dies we die with it and you die too - got it? So please get off your butt, stop trying to look so worldly-wise, and do something. I know, I know, it takes more effort than posting on HN. Tricky, that.
- esailija 7y ago
  > Not everyone defects I don't think I said so. In fact I am vegan myself. I said for everyone that co-operates 10 more will defect, which is true in sentiment because meat consumption keeps rising. > we're fucked anyway Well more specifically either capitalism ends or the world ends.

yodsanklai 7y ago

> If you are seriously concerned about climate change, pressure your government to impose a large tax on beef Why not, but there are so many factors contributing to climate change that it's "suspicious" when people target one specific thing. It's quite difficult to be heard. Why should I renounce to eat beef, while other people have the right to have 3 kids, or to drive a SUV, or to fly to the other side of the world. If it was possible, it would be best to integrate the cost of externalities in what we consume, so that everyone can choose to sacrifice what they value less. But maybe if we really had to pay for externalities, they wouldn't much that we could still afford.

justaguyhere 7y ago

People love meat. I've had discussions with (otherwise) intelligent and responsible people - they suddenly turn irrational and irresponsible when talking about the amount of meat they consume and its shitty effects on everything. It is going to be really difficult to convince people to consume less meat, increase tax on meat etc. Not saying we shouldn't try, but it is a tough problem to take on.

PeterStuer 7y ago

You really think ail deforestation is driven by the poor people, and not by the Brazilian meat packing corporations JBS, BRF, Marfrig and Minerva? Slavery is still very widespread in the meat-packing industry in the region, I do not think the 'poor' have much agency in this<