9 ms·
“Hello #3576. You have reached your 1kg monthly limit of natural meat. Please consult the official list for alternatives.”
by tloriato 4y ago
“Hello #3576. You have reached your 1kg monthly limit of natural meat. Please consult the official list for alternatives.”
- baisq 4y ago
- ekianjo 4y ago> Please consult the official list for alternatives.” More likely a new way to tax stuff that the government does not like. Eating too much red-meat from methane-producing cows? Extra climate change tax for you!
- fullshark 4y agoCan’t they just add a meat sales tax to accomplish that?
- klipt 4y agoOr just measure the methane output and charge the farmers a tax on that directly. That would give them incentive to feed their cows that methane reducing seaweed.
- MontyCarloHall 4y agoNot if the tax is progressive (higher earning people, or people eating more meat get taxed at a higher rate).
- mdp2021 4y ago> Can’t they just add a meat sales tax No, because the (sinisterly clever) idea of ekianjo allows the implementation of something which is sought by some: progressive taxation of limited resources or externalities etc, as opposed to fixed one. It's akin to rationing. You drive 10000 miles/y, pay 1/u or 1000; if 20000 miles/y, pay 2/u or 4000...
- gonzo41 4y agoThey should probably think about the Natural Gas that makes up 60 % of the total value of Norway's exports before they go virtue signalling to people eating meat from farms that use tractors.
- deleted 4y ago[deleted]
- ekianjo 4y ago> They should probably think about... Problem is hypocrisy is hardly a reason that you can use against those in power.
- WanderPanda 4y agoBut they are also exporting green electricity certificates to balance it off. #greenwashing
- deleted 4y ago[deleted]
- 867-5309 4y agothis would arguably be a great thing
- ekianjo 4y agoLet's not stop there and let's profile people on everything they purchase and increase their taxes on everything that's not remotely considered healthy enough, because you know, they increase the burden on the whole society! That's the recipe for the abolition of individual freedom.
- Beltalowda 4y ago
- ekianjo 4y ago> Ah yes, the great "individual freedom" to screw over the many people already affected by climate change. Thanks buddy. So you'd be OK with full-on tyranny? Because there's never going to be a short list of massive problems in the world to deal with. > You're also shifting the discussion from climate change Not shifting anything, I was giving an example of how certain items could be taxed by linking them to current problems. You can easily extend that example to other things beyond climate change.
- Beltalowda 4y ago> there's never going to be a short list of massive problems in the world to deal with. Yes, you live on a finite world with a lot of people and many things you choose to do affects other people too. Now, you may choose to stick your fingers in your ears and shout "LALA I CAN'T HEAR YOU" and straw-man everything you don't like as "full-on tyranny" if you wish, but that's not how it works and at that point you're no longer really part of any constructive dialogue. There is always a balance, and it's rarely easy.
- jacooper 4y agoClimate change is stopped by doing meaningful things like stopping oil exports, moving the grid to renewable energy, Not shifting the burden to individuals who contribute almost nothing compared to giant corporations, And doing werid things like banning meat, imagine if they did the opposite, they hike vegetable prices because you don't eat enough meat. If this happens(the article doesn't say this has anything to do with climate change specifically) it would be just a giant distraction from Norway's role in climate change by producing Oil.
- Epa095 4y agoThere already is taxes like that, e.g on gasoline. Its very easy, just put a flat tax per liter. Then the more you use the more you pay. No need for extra surveillance, unless you want progressive taxaction of those resources.
- monkeybutton 4y agoOr "you've reached your monthly quota of alcohol purchases". Which isn't far fetched at all! In parts of Canada, up into the 50s, you had to bring your permit booklet to buy alcohol from state operated stores where they recorded your purchases: https://www.tvo.org/article/buzzkillers-a-brief-history-of-the-lcbo https://www.tvo.org/article/buzzkillers-a-brief-history-of-t...
- madeofpalk 4y agoI mean, > Vinmonopolet (English: The Wine Monopoly), symbolized by Ⓥ and colloquially shortened to Polet, is a government-owned alcoholic beverage retailer and the only company allowed to sell beverages containing an alcohol content higher than 4.75% in Norway. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Vinmonopolet https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Vinmonopolet
- hericium 4y agoSweden is similar - you can't buy a beer with > 3.5% alcohol. Subjectively, they improved the quality of these 2.1% / 3.5% beers. It was piss some 10 years ago. Higher percentage, "normal" alcoholic products are sold in government-run Systembolaget[1]. And there's almost no cash in Sweden. [1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Systembolaget https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Systembolaget
- kzrdude 4y agoIt's so sad that Sweden doesn't allow real beer in the shops like Norway does.
- rsolva 4y agoI don't know, I have started to think we shouldn't sell any type of hard drugs, like alcohol and tobacco, in grocery stores. Why not sell these products in separate specialized stores, like we already do with Vinmonopolet?
- 4y ago
- paulcole 4y agoDoing stuff like this today is going to be 100x better than what people 3 generations from now will have to live through thanks to climate change. The question is whether we’re willing to inconvenience ourselves today to protect future generations - and the answer is looking like no.
- jen20 4y agoGiven that since 2020 we observed that (at least in the US) many were not even prepared to accept minor inconvenience to protect the _current_ generations, I’d say the answer is emphatically “hell no” rather than just looking like it.
- fullshark 4y agoI have the opposite take. The lesson from COVID is like the lesson from the war on terror imo, the majority of people largely DID accept massive curtailing of individual freedom due to fear, and will do it again the next crisis that comes along. The climate change crisis is slow moving and 100% of the people don't accept it as happening but if it produces an actual short term crisis like a famine then the statists will be ready to use it to propose (or possibly just enforce without passing laws) massive intrusions on individual rights again and continue to search for similar crises to keep doing it.
- basisword 4y agoThe answer is no for stupid solutions like tracking everybody’s meat consumption and a government limiting it. You will be swiftly told to fuck off (and rightly so). You need to get people on your side and contributing without massively changing their lifestyles, instead of alienating them. We need massive reductions in business contributions to climate change and we need investment in current clean energy solutions and investment in further research. The current younger generations already are less well off economically than the last. They shouldn’t have to make further sacrifices for future generations.
- jacooper 4y ago
- whatever1 4y agoIn the US we do it already. The insurance companies can themselves define what healthy lifestyle is and they charge you higher premium. Or deny you coverage. If you have any objection you can take them to the court and face their multi million legal teams.
- GeorgeBanica 4y agoCompared with taxes, at least this way everyone gets the same amount of meat independent of how wealthy they are.
- ihattendorf 4y agoBecause the wealthy surely wouldn't be able to find a way around a supermarket meat restriction...
- Iv 4y ago*illegally Sure, there are illegal ways around all laws. That does not make laws useless.
- kzrdude 4y agoNorway is already the country where it's quite normal to drive to Sweden to buy tobacco, alcohol and yes meat, and other stuff that's cheaper across the borders. Restaurants source cheaper meat illegally this way etc. Unfortunately, Sweden is in the EU and Norway is not so there's quite a lot of customs rules on that border.
- Broken_Hippo 4y agoAnd I should point out that this is a day trip: It takes me less than 90 minutes to get to Sweden. There are busses and trains that go as well. There might be a lot of customs rules on the border, but I've never seen them actually stop folks either.
- kzrdude 4y agoRight, the border is chill (except for the crazy covid times, hope that's behind us). Mostly easy and fair rules for regular people. But the point is, if your car is full of meat and it's for a restaurant, not personal consumption, it's definitely illegal.
- 4y ago
- Iv 4y agoIf Norway reaches the point where they have to ration meat, I don't see the problem with such a system.
- jacooper 4y agoYou don't have to track everyone to ration resources. You can just say, 1KG per person, and voilla its done.
- Iv 4y agoUh, you literally have to track people's consumption to ration resources. During WWII it was done with state-issued ration tickets and a crackdown on the inevitable black market that emerged. That's a good alternative to this.
- avgcorrection 4y agoNo. The limit will be less generous. :)