6 ms·

> The simplest way to cut beef output is for people to eat other animals instead, or become vegetarians. That’s like, in 1900, saying “the simplest way to prev

by elil17 5y ago

> The simplest way to cut beef output is for people to eat other animals instead, or become vegetarians. That’s like, in 1900, saying “the simplest way to prevent road deaths is for everyone to drive slower.” That’s not simple at all - that’s an intractable group behavior problem. What you really need is for the government to come along and put up speed limits. Most people will push those rules, a few will flout them, but things will be better. So let’s have a carbon tax that includes all sources of greenhouse gas, including domesticated animals, and stop passing moral judgement on people who are stressed enough as it is figuring out how to navigate our challenging world.

kybernetyk 5y ago
Yes, we absolutely need the government to tell people what they’re allowed to eat.
- emkoemko 5y ago
  yes that already exists, last time i checked governments don't like it when people eat other people;
  - legulere 5y ago
    Or depending on where you live horses, cats and dogs.
    - herbst 5y ago
      Welcome to Switzerland, the only place you can have all of those.
- heydabop 5y ago
  Maybe read the entire comment before replying to it.
- lm28469 5y ago
  That's where we'll be in 50-100 years if we want to have a future that doesn't suck too much, and not just about what you eat. We're definitely living in the golden age of consumerism in every aspects: energy, food, travel, electronic gadgets, &c. We're producing and consuming so much useless shit and well aware that we're heading for disaster. We're either going to be limited by natural resources, climate issues or our own actions to limit ourself to avoid #1 and #2. There is just no way around it, you can't keep on extracting more and more ressources from a closed system, you can't keep polluting more and more in a closed system, you can't target an exponential growth in a closed system. Companies don't give a shit, because their sole purpose is to not care about these issues. That's how you get companies like apple shitting unrepairable products every 6 months, but it's ok because their offices are carbon neutral, right ? Countries don't give a shit, because GDP is king and energy = GDP, https://www.eea.europa.eu/data-and-maps/figures/correlation-of-per-capita-energy https://www.eea.europa.eu/data-and-maps/figures/correlation-... So it's a game of chicken, everyone knows about the problem, they all know the solutions, but no one is really taking action, because that would be a massive paradigm shift in virtually every aspect of our economy
- elil17 5y ago
  The government never regulates food products. Fishing boats are allowed to keep any fish or crustacean regardless of size or sex. In fact, they don’t even have daily catch limits they have to adhere too. We’re so lucky that all fishing companies voluntarily avoid over fishing. If there was some sort of “department of game and fish” in most states regulating what animals you can eat, it would probably be the beginning of the end for America. I would just up and move to Canada.
tuatoru 5y ago
Remember to apply Gell-Man Amnesia[1] to all of The Economist's writings. It's self-parody at this point, or Mad Magazine for PPE[2] nerds. 1. https://www.epsilontheory.com/gell-mann-amnesia/ https://www.epsilontheory.com/gell-mann-amnesia/ “Briefly stated, the Gell-Mann Amnesia effect is as follows. You open the newspaper to an article on some subject you know well. In Murray’s case, physics. In mine, show business. You read the article and see the journalist has absolutely no understanding of either the facts or the issues. Often, the article is so wrong it actually presents the story backward—reversing cause and effect. I call these the “wet streets cause rain” stories. Paper’s full of them. In any case, you read with exasperation or amusement the multiple errors in a story, and then turn the page to national or international affairs, and read as if the rest of the newspaper was somehow more accurate about Palestine than the baloney you just read. You turn the page, and forget what you know.” – Michael Crichton (1942-2008) 2. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Philosophy,_politics_and_economics https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Philosophy,_politics_and_econo...
- wumpus 5y ago
  Michael Crichton, the author who has researchers overwhelmed with lust for research grants as the evil people in his novels.
  - mrjangles 5y ago
    If you see this is an unrealistic you should talk to someone (anyone) who works in academia. Actually I work in academia so I'll start the ball rolling by telling you this isn't unrealistic.
    - wumpus 5y ago
      Actually I work in academia, too. You can find a lot of people who work in academia who find Stage of Fear (in particular) to be a thinly-veiled attempt to smear the entire climate science community. Because everyone is in lust with grant money.
mdrachuk 5y ago
Do I need to pay carbon tax on my dog?
- adrianN 5y ago
  Unless your dog burns fossil fuels you most likely only need to pay carbon tax on the dog products you use that were made using fossil fuels. Dogs don't produce a lot of Methane either, because they're not ruminants.
  - caeril 5y ago
    > Unless your dog burns fossil fuels Cattle only burn fossil fuels to the extent that transporting water and feed, fertilizing that feed, and manufacturing and transporting fencing materials, antibiotics, etc, use. Guess what? Your dog has roughly the same impact making and transporting his food, his water, his veterinarian supplies, any bedding you've purchased, bags to dispose of his feces, collars, leashes, toys, etc. I don't have hard numbers but intuitively I'd guess dogs and cattle have approximately the same climate impact on a pound-of-bodyweight basis. Dogs probably have slightly more, since they live in much more luxurious digs than CAFO cattle, eat higher quality feed, get to ride in cars, etc.
- blacksmith_tb 5y ago
  I would be fine with paying a carbon tax on my cat, the meat he eats (all chicken, at least, and not that much) has some footprint (pawprint?) after all. I do pay for some extra offsets via Wren, so maybe he's covered.
swader999 5y ago
The ironic thing is that speed limits reduce revenues collected from gas tax via better fuel efficiency from driving slower.
- axiolite 5y ago
  A mid-sized conventional gasoline car is more fuel efficient at 55MPH than at 45MPH. Pumping losses work that way. With improved aerodynamics, you could get that even higher. https://afdc.energy.gov/data/10312 https://afdc.energy.gov/data/10312
  - TedDoesntTalk 5y ago
    Incredible. Thanks for sharing. I had no idea. What is “pumping loss “?
    - axiolite 5y ago
      > What is “pumping loss “? Unlike older scientific topics that have esoteric terminology, usually from the Latin, this one is pretty straight forward... It is the energy lost due to pumping. Basically, the overhead of keeping an engine running no matter how much distance of roadway you cover, but more on point, the extra losses due to running an engine outside of its peak power/performance range: https://www.cycleworld.com/2015/10/12/ask-kevin-what-is-pumping-loss-in-spark-ignition-piston-engines/ https://www.cycleworld.com/2015/10/12/ask-kevin-what-is-pump...
      - wumpus 5y ago
        Weird, does this apply to EV's, too?
        axiolite 5y ago
        > does this apply to EV's, too? Not "pumping" losses, no. There is no intake air or exhaust gas to pump. EVs may experience an effect that is similar in practice, albeit much smaller... Things like headlights, HVAC, entertainment systems, etc., will draw more power the longer it takes you to get to your destination, so reducing your speed from 30 to 15 MPH might not be an efficiency win.
ovalite 5y ago
As mentioned earlier, methane breaks down after 10 years into CO2 which makes livestock more part of the cycle rather than a producer. Applying the tax to any process that directly removes carbon sinks (eg. drilling/forest clearing) should take care of any downstream processes that rely on it.
kart23 5y ago
did speed limits really make things better though? germany has the autobahn and sections with no speed limit, yet their roadways are much safer than the US.
- bserge 5y ago
  Do those deaths only count Autobahn/highway deaths? If not, then Germany has the upper hand with a miraculous ancient technology called sidewalks. They also have bike lanes - no, not for motorcycles, but bicycles!
  - bzzzt 5y ago
    In addition to that you actually have to demonstrate some driving competence (with a minimum of 20 hours of theory study) to get a driver's license.
    - beerandt 5y ago
      Most US states require more than 20 hours in the classroom (usually a week or two), plus 8+ hours of actual driving with a driver's education teacher, plus some number of years with a learner's permit, where driving is only allowed during the day with a licensed driver 21 or older supervising in the vehicle. Then written and driving tests by the DMV must be passed to get licensed. In practice, the classroom study usually isn't all that rigorous, and the testing is likely too easy. But the requirements on paper aren't typically any easier in the US. What's most needed is probably refresher quizzes for license renewals to remind drivers of commonly forgotten or new driving laws. Like who has right of way at a 4 way stop, or how to zipper merge.
- jpalomaki 5y ago
  "Taking a closer look at Germany, federal and state statistics reported by Der Spiegel show that there 0.95 fatal accidents per billion kilometres driven on German autobahn sections with speed limits. When it comes the parts without a speed limit, however, there are 1.67 fatal accidents - 75 percent more than on stretches with a speed limit." https://www.statista.com/chart/25098/fatality-rate-and-speed-limit-on-european-motorways/ https://www.statista.com/chart/25098/fatality-rate-and-speed... https://www.spiegel.de/auto/aktuell/tempolimit-koennte-jaehrlich-bis-zu-140-todesfaelle-verhindern-a-1254504.html https://www.spiegel.de/auto/aktuell/tempolimit-koennte-jaehr... ( In German, should be the original source) Would be interesting to know about accidents in general. It's quite obvious that higher speeds increase the likelihood of fatal accidents.

by elil17 5y ago

kybernetyk 5y ago

Yes, we absolutely need the government to tell people what they’re allowed to eat.

emkoemko 5y ago
yes that already exists, last time i checked governments don't like it when people eat other people;
- legulere 5y ago
  Or depending on where you live horses, cats and dogs.
  - herbst 5y ago
    Welcome to Switzerland, the only place you can have all of those.
heydabop 5y ago
Maybe read the entire comment before replying to it.
lm28469 5y ago
That's where we'll be in 50-100 years if we want to have a future that doesn't suck too much, and not just about what you eat. We're definitely living in the golden age of consumerism in every aspects: energy, food, travel, electronic gadgets, &c. We're producing and consuming so much useless shit and well aware that we're heading for disaster. We're either going to be limited by natural resources, climate issues or our own actions to limit ourself to avoid #1 and #2. There is just no way around it, you can't keep on extracting more and more ressources from a closed system, you can't keep polluting more and more in a closed system, you can't target an exponential growth in a closed system. Companies don't give a shit, because their sole purpose is to not care about these issues. That's how you get companies like apple shitting unrepairable products every 6 months, but it's ok because their offices are carbon neutral, right ? Countries don't give a shit, because GDP is king and energy = GDP, https://www.eea.europa.eu/data-and-maps/figures/correlation-of-per-capita-energy https://www.eea.europa.eu/data-and-maps/figures/correlation-... So it's a game of chicken, everyone knows about the problem, they all know the solutions, but no one is really taking action, because that would be a massive paradigm shift in virtually every aspect of our economy
elil17 5y ago
The government never regulates food products. Fishing boats are allowed to keep any fish or crustacean regardless of size or sex. In fact, they don’t even have daily catch limits they have to adhere too. We’re so lucky that all fishing companies voluntarily avoid over fishing. If there was some sort of “department of game and fish” in most states regulating what animals you can eat, it would probably be the beginning of the end for America. I would just up and move to Canada.

tuatoru 5y ago

Remember to apply Gell-Man Amnesia[1] to all of The Economist's writings. It's self-parody at this point, or Mad Magazine for PPE[2] nerds. 1. https://www.epsilontheory.com/gell-mann-amnesia/ https://www.epsilontheory.com/gell-mann-amnesia/ “Briefly stated, the Gell-Mann Amnesia effect is as follows. You open the newspaper to an article on some subject you know well. In Murray’s case, physics. In mine, show business. You read the article and see the journalist has absolutely no understanding of either the facts or the issues. Often, the article is so wrong it actually presents the story backward—reversing cause and effect. I call these the “wet streets cause rain” stories. Paper’s full of them. In any case, you read with exasperation or amusement the multiple errors in a story, and then turn the page to national or international affairs, and read as if the rest of the newspaper was somehow more accurate about Palestine than the baloney you just read. You turn the page, and forget what you know.” – Michael Crichton (1942-2008) 2. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Philosophy,_politics_and_economics https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Philosophy,_politics_and_econo...

wumpus 5y ago
Michael Crichton, the author who has researchers overwhelmed with lust for research grants as the evil people in his novels.
- mrjangles 5y ago
  If you see this is an unrealistic you should talk to someone (anyone) who works in academia. Actually I work in academia so I'll start the ball rolling by telling you this isn't unrealistic.
  - wumpus 5y ago
    Actually I work in academia, too. You can find a lot of people who work in academia who find Stage of Fear (in particular) to be a thinly-veiled attempt to smear the entire climate science community. Because everyone is in lust with grant money.

mdrachuk 5y ago

Do I need to pay carbon tax on my dog?

adrianN 5y ago
Unless your dog burns fossil fuels you most likely only need to pay carbon tax on the dog products you use that were made using fossil fuels. Dogs don't produce a lot of Methane either, because they're not ruminants.
- caeril 5y ago
  > Unless your dog burns fossil fuels Cattle only burn fossil fuels to the extent that transporting water and feed, fertilizing that feed, and manufacturing and transporting fencing materials, antibiotics, etc, use. Guess what? Your dog has roughly the same impact making and transporting his food, his water, his veterinarian supplies, any bedding you've purchased, bags to dispose of his feces, collars, leashes, toys, etc. I don't have hard numbers but intuitively I'd guess dogs and cattle have approximately the same climate impact on a pound-of-bodyweight basis. Dogs probably have slightly more, since they live in much more luxurious digs than CAFO cattle, eat higher quality feed, get to ride in cars, etc.
blacksmith_tb 5y ago
I would be fine with paying a carbon tax on my cat, the meat he eats (all chicken, at least, and not that much) has some footprint (pawprint?) after all. I do pay for some extra offsets via Wren, so maybe he's covered.

swader999 5y ago

The ironic thing is that speed limits reduce revenues collected from gas tax via better fuel efficiency from driving slower.

axiolite 5y ago
A mid-sized conventional gasoline car is more fuel efficient at 55MPH than at 45MPH. Pumping losses work that way. With improved aerodynamics, you could get that even higher. https://afdc.energy.gov/data/10312 https://afdc.energy.gov/data/10312
- TedDoesntTalk 5y ago
  Incredible. Thanks for sharing. I had no idea. What is “pumping loss “?
  - axiolite 5y ago
    > What is “pumping loss “? Unlike older scientific topics that have esoteric terminology, usually from the Latin, this one is pretty straight forward... It is the energy lost due to pumping. Basically, the overhead of keeping an engine running no matter how much distance of roadway you cover, but more on point, the extra losses due to running an engine outside of its peak power/performance range: https://www.cycleworld.com/2015/10/12/ask-kevin-what-is-pumping-loss-in-spark-ignition-piston-engines/ https://www.cycleworld.com/2015/10/12/ask-kevin-what-is-pump...
    - wumpus 5y ago
      Weird, does this apply to EV's, too?
      - axiolite 5y ago
        > does this apply to EV's, too? Not "pumping" losses, no. There is no intake air or exhaust gas to pump. EVs may experience an effect that is similar in practice, albeit much smaller... Things like headlights, HVAC, entertainment systems, etc., will draw more power the longer it takes you to get to your destination, so reducing your speed from 30 to 15 MPH might not be an efficiency win.

ovalite 5y ago

As mentioned earlier, methane breaks down after 10 years into CO2 which makes livestock more part of the cycle rather than a producer. Applying the tax to any process that directly removes carbon sinks (eg. drilling/forest clearing) should take care of any downstream processes that rely on it.

kart23 5y ago

did speed limits really make things better though? germany has the autobahn and sections with no speed limit, yet their roadways are much safer than the US.

bserge 5y ago
Do those deaths only count Autobahn/highway deaths? If not, then Germany has the upper hand with a miraculous ancient technology called sidewalks. They also have bike lanes - no, not for motorcycles, but bicycles!
- bzzzt 5y ago
  In addition to that you actually have to demonstrate some driving competence (with a minimum of 20 hours of theory study) to get a driver's license.
  - beerandt 5y ago
    Most US states require more than 20 hours in the classroom (usually a week or two), plus 8+ hours of actual driving with a driver's education teacher, plus some number of years with a learner's permit, where driving is only allowed during the day with a licensed driver 21 or older supervising in the vehicle. Then written and driving tests by the DMV must be passed to get licensed. In practice, the classroom study usually isn't all that rigorous, and the testing is likely too easy. But the requirements on paper aren't typically any easier in the US. What's most needed is probably refresher quizzes for license renewals to remind drivers of commonly forgotten or new driving laws. Like who has right of way at a 4 way stop, or how to zipper merge.
jpalomaki 5y ago
"Taking a closer look at Germany, federal and state statistics reported by Der Spiegel show that there 0.95 fatal accidents per billion kilometres driven on German autobahn sections with speed limits. When it comes the parts without a speed limit, however, there are 1.67 fatal accidents - 75 percent more than on stretches with a speed limit." https://www.statista.com/chart/25098/fatality-rate-and-speed-limit-on-european-motorways/ https://www.statista.com/chart/25098/fatality-rate-and-speed... https://www.spiegel.de/auto/aktuell/tempolimit-koennte-jaehrlich-bis-zu-140-todesfaelle-verhindern-a-1254504.html https://www.spiegel.de/auto/aktuell/tempolimit-koennte-jaehr... ( In German, should be the original source) Would be interesting to know about accidents in general. It's quite obvious that higher speeds increase the likelihood of fatal accidents.