A new study published in the journal, Climate Change, suggested that the world should impose a new tax on milk and meats to stem the growth of global warming.
In a Discovery News article from Monday, the authors of the study believe that imposing a tax on foodstuffs will get people to cut back on proteins in their diet, and thus save carbon emissions.
"This tax is not at all a matter of forcing people to become vegetarians but merely moving toward a slightly more climate-smart diet," said one of the study's authors, Stefan Wirsenius of the University of Gothenburg, Sweden, in a press release.
Tacking about $82 onto the cost of beef for every “ton of carbon dioxide equivalent” would reduce Europe's beef consumption by 15 percent. By taxing all meats and milk, Europe's greenhouse gas emissions would be reduced by about 7 percent, according to the study.
Economically, this tax and policy would be a disaster to the western nations of the world, as their diets are tied to the need for protein to deal with colder climates. Inflation on all food, including fruit and vegetables has grown over 30% in the past decade, and in this world-wide recession any additional taxes would cause more people to go into poverty than it would help the environment.
In the end, environmentalists have a difficult time weighing in the overall cost of their ideological programs. They don't see the ramifications and consequences of forcing change on people and culture that does not want to change, and would only create hardships that outweigh any potential good.
The question remains this... if environmental scientists want to fight global warming, then why do they waste so much time trying to impose their lifestyles on others? Why not instead, spend the time and energy to create technology that would clean the atmosphere of what they perceive is too much carbon, and that way they affect very few, but benefit a planet?
Comments
Scientists produced cruise missiles, cancer causing chemicals, land mine technology, nuclear weapons, germ warfare, cluster bombs, strip mining technology, Y2K, Y2Kyoto, deep sea drilling technology and now climate change. And how ironic is it that up until 25 years ago, scientists were condemned for producing planet killing chemicals and making environmentalism necessary in the first place?
Kimberly, uh, you're an idiot. "Environmentalism" is not necessary at all, except in the minds or the morons who coined the phrase. The havoc that has been wreaked on the global economy, not to mention the cultural destruction and the wholesale pureeing of the minds of the youth is almost unfathomable. No longer are results measured in results, but rather, in lack of results. Only by doing less can you do more. The end of civilization may be near...not because of global warming, but because the industrialization that has brought us everything good in the world is near extinction thanks to the regulation and demonization brought to us by the environmental crackpots. Someday, when you're living in a cave, wiping your rear with a leaf, you can look back to these horrible days of human empire, and you can grin the satisfied grin of a moron.
there r riots all over the world because of high food costs. different liberal groups have different agendas, so one group praises Islam, a homophobic nation, while another group praises blacks who are also homophobic
Let's just tax everything, including air. Then we won't have to worry about arguing about taxing anything anymore, because it will already be taxed! @@<---this is me rolling my eyes
THIS IS A HORRIBLE IDEA.
THE AMERICAN DIET IS OVERLOADED WITH CARBOHYDRATES. THAT IS WHY WE HAVE A DIABETES EPIDEMIC.
EAT PROTEIN, AVOID CARBS (SUGARS AND GRAINS). WHEN I CHECKED OUT AT WALMART YESTERDAY I SAW AN ENDLESS STREAM OF FAT PEOPLE BUYING CARB PRODUCTS BECAUSE THEY ARE CHEAP AND TASTY. THESE ARE CURRENT OR FUTURE DIABETICS.
It is not "ideological" to propose new approaches to combat global warming. We need to mitigate the oncoming climate disaster in any way we can. Every approach is worth discussing. The need for action is not debatable.
Kenneth, your argument is very simplistic. Don't tax my beef, because you don't like it, or is it you are taxed enough already, or is it that you think climate change is false. Hard to tell from your article, only that you think a tax on meat is bad. The idea that meat is the only source of protein is completely wrong. You should note that legumes are another great source of protein, almost as good as meat, without the fat.
I think maybe you should look at this more as a way to charge for the external cost to society that meat causes. Right now, no one pays for the pollution of meat, no one pays for emissions from meat production. We as a society are subsidizing the industry and allowing them to pollute without paying for that benefit. We charge for the use of our roads, the use of the air waves (radio, TV), the use of waterways, and many others. It is time to start correctly pricing the external costs of what we do, rather than subsidizing corporations by allowing them to reduce the quality of our environment.
It is a misconception that carbs are at fault. Simple carbs, yes. But complex carbs such as legumes (beans) are cheap and full of protein and an excellent alternative to meat. People need to educate themselves on nutrition before making sweeping claims about any food. High fat proteins (bacon for example) are just as much to blame for the obesity epidemic as simple, sugar-filled carbs. People took the Atkins diet and made a mess of it. Loading up your diet with eggs and bacon didn't help anyone.
Encouraging and supporting farmers in producing more products such as legumes, soy, low sugar fruits such as strawberries, blueberries, cantaloupes and a variety of vegetables would be better than a unilateral tax on beef and milk. Spending our energy and time to fully educate the public on what really constitutes a balanced and healthy diet would be much more acceptable as well.
Add a fee to corn fuel ethanol.
Drinking ethanol is taxed at $17.00 per gal
Stop using food in my gas
Corn fuel ethanol stinks
Charlie Peters
The article seems to be saying that protein only comes from meat and dairy, and that people in warm climates need less of it. If the level of understanding regarding nutrition is any indicator of the level of understanding regarding climate change and finance, then I think we can safely disregard this "article" as uninformed. I can get this level of insight from any dude that happens to be standing at the bus stop.
Got something to say?
Examiner.com is looking for writers, photographers, and videographers to join the fastest growing group of local insiders. If you are interested in growing your online rep apply to be an Examiner today!