6 ms·

this would arguably be a great thing

ekianjo 4y ago
Let'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 ago
    Climate 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.
    - srean 4y ago
      > compared to giant corporations and doing werid things banning meat Presumably these giant corporations are after the profits that can be booked by serving the demand. The question is how much of that demand is ultimately attributable to demands generated by the behaviors and wants of the lay people, even if they are not the proximate cause. Avoiding externalities is a thing. I would rather have that loop hole plugged instead of a persistent socialization of risks and losses and privatization of the gains, now that would be a free market.
  - deleted 4y ago
    [deleted]
- fullshark 4y ago
  You can choose to pay more taxes/fees at least, people already do that for certain things that are designed to nudge people to behave properly (e.g. pay 10 cents for a bag to encourage you to bring reusable bags and some people just don't care). Sin taxes are not new things.
- avgcorrection 4y ago
  There’s a lot of talk in N about the “people health” and how people need to eat less sugar etc. And how things like sugar should be taxed more. But you can still buy as much candy and whatever at the grocery store. And it doesn’t seem terribly expensive, either. (Alcohol is, though.) There should be some opt-in assistance for making better lifestyle choices, I think. More walk, less talk. There are already self-help ideas that center around promising other people that you won’t do X, or that you will do Y, and then having to pay them money or something if you do/don’t. Why couldn’t the government help you do the same thing? As a not-for-profit alternative. EDIT: I don’t mean that the disincentive should be that you give the government money if you fail. That would be a bad incentive for the government.
californical 4y ago
I’m a vegetarian because of environmental (and more recently, ethical) reasons. I’m an enormous advocate of reducing the quantity of animal products that the world uses. This is definitely not a “great thing”. There are much less invasive ways to influence behavior and nudge consumers to consume fewer harmful products. Like simply using product-specific taxes or labeling requirements. Or targeting the producers directly. We don’t need to increase government surveillance, ever.
- Elinvynia 4y ago
  You should look up "Dairy is scary" on YouTube then (promise, it's worth it!). Being a vegetarian has much less impact than one might think.
  - fmakunbound 4y ago
    Heh I’ve been vegan for ages, just watched it. Great reminder.
jacooper 4y ago
Ah yes, the meat people eat definitely has more impact than the oil Norway produces. You don't get to dectiate what people eat, imagine the other side, you are not eating enough meat, we will tax vegetables more in your purchases.
kzrdude 4y ago
Meat is part of a healthy diet. Sure, some survive on other stuff, but in general, meat is healthy.
- swader999 4y ago
  It's essential.
  - lambdaba 4y ago
    Seconded. I'm on an all-meat diet and I turned my health around thanks to it. Most often people who advocate eliminating meat look sickly, because they are.
    - BenjiWiebe 4y ago
      Where do you get your dietary fiber from?
      - lambdaba 4y ago
        I don't, turns out transit works fine (actually much better) without it. I won't speculate on whether this would apply to everybody but my hypothesis is my health issues stemmed from gut biome disregulation caused by - way too many causes to list - and somehow only total elimination of carbohydrates and plant matter fixes it.
    - hhjinks 4y ago
      I'm happy that worked for you, but nutrition is too complex to make sweeping statements like that. Some scientists say that animal fats are unhealthy, while others correlate the increase in lifestyle diseases with the increased consumption of vegetable fats. We just don't know enough about how the body works.
      - deleted 4y ago
        [deleted]
    - 4y ago
tomp 4y ago
Meat is literally recycled grass. Zero net carbon footprint. Sure cows release methane, but it’s part of a cycle and doesn’t contribute to long-term climate change. All other “C footprint” is a consequence of poor farming practices, not meat. Blame the process (and the energy source) not the product.
deleted 4y ago
[deleted]

Let'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 ago
  Climate 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.
  - srean 4y ago
    > compared to giant corporations and doing werid things banning meat Presumably these giant corporations are after the profits that can be booked by serving the demand. The question is how much of that demand is ultimately attributable to demands generated by the behaviors and wants of the lay people, even if they are not the proximate cause. Avoiding externalities is a thing. I would rather have that loop hole plugged instead of a persistent socialization of risks and losses and privatization of the gains, now that would be a free market.
- deleted 4y ago
  [deleted]
fullshark 4y ago
You can choose to pay more taxes/fees at least, people already do that for certain things that are designed to nudge people to behave properly (e.g. pay 10 cents for a bag to encourage you to bring reusable bags and some people just don't care). Sin taxes are not new things.
avgcorrection 4y ago
There’s a lot of talk in N about the “people health” and how people need to eat less sugar etc. And how things like sugar should be taxed more. But you can still buy as much candy and whatever at the grocery store. And it doesn’t seem terribly expensive, either. (Alcohol is, though.) There should be some opt-in assistance for making better lifestyle choices, I think. More walk, less talk. There are already self-help ideas that center around promising other people that you won’t do X, or that you will do Y, and then having to pay them money or something if you do/don’t. Why couldn’t the government help you do the same thing? As a not-for-profit alternative. EDIT: I don’t mean that the disincentive should be that you give the government money if you fail. That would be a bad incentive for the government.

californical 4y ago

I’m a vegetarian because of environmental (and more recently, ethical) reasons. I’m an enormous advocate of reducing the quantity of animal products that the world uses. This is definitely not a “great thing”. There are much less invasive ways to influence behavior and nudge consumers to consume fewer harmful products. Like simply using product-specific taxes or labeling requirements. Or targeting the producers directly. We don’t need to increase government surveillance, ever.

Elinvynia 4y ago
You should look up "Dairy is scary" on YouTube then (promise, it's worth it!). Being a vegetarian has much less impact than one might think.
- fmakunbound 4y ago
  Heh I’ve been vegan for ages, just watched it. Great reminder.

jacooper 4y ago

Ah yes, the meat people eat definitely has more impact than the oil Norway produces. You don't get to dectiate what people eat, imagine the other side, you are not eating enough meat, we will tax vegetables more in your purchases.

kzrdude 4y ago

Meat is part of a healthy diet. Sure, some survive on other stuff, but in general, meat is healthy.

swader999 4y ago
It's essential.
- lambdaba 4y ago
  Seconded. I'm on an all-meat diet and I turned my health around thanks to it. Most often people who advocate eliminating meat look sickly, because they are.
  - BenjiWiebe 4y ago
    Where do you get your dietary fiber from?
    - lambdaba 4y ago
      I don't, turns out transit works fine (actually much better) without it. I won't speculate on whether this would apply to everybody but my hypothesis is my health issues stemmed from gut biome disregulation caused by - way too many causes to list - and somehow only total elimination of carbohydrates and plant matter fixes it.
  - hhjinks 4y ago
    I'm happy that worked for you, but nutrition is too complex to make sweeping statements like that. Some scientists say that animal fats are unhealthy, while others correlate the increase in lifestyle diseases with the increased consumption of vegetable fats. We just don't know enough about how the body works.
    - deleted 4y ago
      [deleted]
  - 4y ago

tomp 4y ago

Meat is literally recycled grass. Zero net carbon footprint. Sure cows release methane, but it’s part of a cycle and doesn’t contribute to long-term climate change. All other “C footprint” is a consequence of poor farming practices, not meat. Blame the process (and the energy source) not the product.

deleted 4y ago

[deleted]