It's still not essential though unless you're living in abject poverty. And even then, how do you think lactose intolerant kids survive? There's always a way.
Most people in the world don't drink milk either.
-
Hey, guest user. Hope you're enjoying NeoGAF! Have you considered registering for an account? Come join us and add your take to the daily discourse.
Meat & Diary Consumption Tax - political suicide? Climate and Global health impacts
- Thread starter Boney
- Start date
- Status
It's still not essential though unless you're living in abject poverty. And even then, how do you think lactose intolerant kids survive? There's always a way.
Most people in the world don't drink milk either.
yes plant milk is expensive but regular milk is not too good for you and is pretty gross imo
LOL. You just pulled that out of your ass or don't live in the US or any other major country.
Yeah, create a tax that trickles down to the food consumption of lower class citizens, genius.
how is life on mars going?
Wafflecakes
Member
That isn't the point. Your post is inane as I never argued that it was not possible to live without milk, only that it is good for you and a a cheap, healthy, staple food for many people who should not be forced to "find a way" by a bunch of people who have decided to solve climate change by butt fucking the poor.
LocknessMobster
Member
Need my steaks,smoked brisket,grilled burgers and bulgogi not to mention my ice cream,milkshakes and cereal milk.
Why did you contradict my initial post then? Because that's all it was saying.
Then you've never had the good milk. Raw milk is incredible. Its nice when your parents have a cow.
One of the issues here is that, at least in North America, the retail consumers pay on certain staple commodities (Milk, Eggs, Butter, Bananas) is not reflective of the actual cost.
Take milk for example, hard discount grocers have pushed retails below cost to increase traffic. Here in Canada, a 4 litre jug of milk will cost over $6.00, and we retail it for $5.29. Every retailer has to engage in this, or they price themselves way out of the market.
This is dangerous because it creates this perception that more sustainable alternatives are much more expensive than they actually are. The only good news is that losing money like this is incentive for retailers to push milk alternatives that they can make a bit of money on, which has been happening.
Liquid milk consumption has dropped 21% over the last 20 years.
http://www.dairyinfo.gc.ca/pdf/camilkcream_e.pdf
if you think growing plants uses more resources then raising large animals (needing to grow food for them too) then Im at a loss for words
Wafflecakes
Member
...because cost and convenience are an integral part of the conversation whether it was directly addressed in your post or not.
R10Neymarfan
Member
You're not screwing over the poor. I don't understand this logic that we will screw over the poor. Poorer people in other countries manage just as well with milk and red meat being rarities.
If you include cost and convenience it's short term gratification. You'll feel those effects via healthcare.
There are food options made without meat and diary (they throw milk in necessarily in every food item these days, not because it to up the nutrition either) that can be done fast, cheap, and even sold conveniently if fast food places want to continue giving you cheap garbage
These articles are from 2015 and 2016? I'm also... not sure about this claim. The articles even contradict themselves on this. (Graph is from the EPA)
Interesting that farming internationally would be so much more wasteful than the US. Synthetic beef will hopefully pick up the slack, eventually... If you can convince people to eat it. The next time someone starts to talk about "cow farts" as a source for global warming, do mention that there is plenty of pollution from agriculture already without needing to make jokes of it.
The bigger factor is that lots of developing countries have a lot less transport.
And a 40% tax on beef lol.
I dont mind the taste but drinking bovine secretions is fucking sick lol
Wafflecakes
Member
Everything was secreted from something else at one point. EVERYTHING.
You don't drink straight from the teat usually. I recommend a pitcher. I prefer my milk chilled. My Dad's old school and doesn't mind it warm. Even he uses a vessel.
ShadowSwordmaster
Banned
This is an interesting article that deals with this topic.
https://www.nytimes.com/2017/03/21/dining/beef-consumption-emissions.html?_r=1
https://www.nytimes.com/2017/03/21/dining/beef-consumption-emissions.html?_r=1
Dairy is not vital. The survival of the human race does not rely on whether or not there are cows around producing milk (for their babies - only for then humans to decide they instead of the baby cows should be sucking from the teats).
The thing though, is that you don't survive solely on milk. It's part of a bigger diet. So while no single ingredient will have the same benefits (also keep in mind that while milk is good from a macro point of view, its other health claims are being contested - see previous page) as milk, your whole diet can still provide you with everything you need without 1. being expensive and 2. being complicated.
I eat beans every day for example, which is cheaper than eating meat and even easier to cook.
I don't believe you should outright put a huge markup on cheap animal-based commodities without thoroughly investigating the potential outcomes though. But if authorities can come up with a good way to discourage the consumption of animal products while encouraging plant-based alternatives in all price ranges, I would be all for it.
CornBurrito
Member
What's the point of nutrients without a viable planet to live on?
Ok, I've got to call bullshit on this line:
Especially since no "recent studies" are actually cited. Small scale farmers aren't going to be able to feed 9–11 billion people on their lonesome, and that leaves aside the fact that no one wants to be a goddamn farmer and for good reason.
The obvious answer is already in the article quoted. A lot of these industries get government subsidies. Cut 'em loose, and either save us the tax money or put those funds to matching climate mitigation strategies. The rising price would be reflected in consumer spending so you'd already get a new "tax" of a sort on those products.
Especially since no "recent studies" are actually cited. Small scale farmers aren't going to be able to feed 9–11 billion people on their lonesome, and that leaves aside the fact that no one wants to be a goddamn farmer and for good reason.
The obvious answer is already in the article quoted. A lot of these industries get government subsidies. Cut 'em loose, and either save us the tax money or put those funds to matching climate mitigation strategies. The rising price would be reflected in consumer spending so you'd already get a new "tax" of a sort on those products.
This is impressive to me. I've never found a bean recipe I wanted to cook more than once.
I realize my perspective is different than most of gaf. I grew up in the suburbs, and one of the yearly rituals was watching the uncle's chop chickens heads off, then go cook chicken heads by the pond. Some chickens really do run around when their heads are cut off.
There is an article quoted, I just didn't bother hiperlinking all the text.
http://www.commondreams.org/news/20...necessity-report-shows-big-ag-cant-feed-world
Which falls in line with how most "philantro-capitalism" invests money for foreign aid through national 1st world NGO's.
This is also why people welcome GMO so much, because it takes away your personal responsibility and gives it to somebody else who will solve all problems for you. So there is no need to change your behavior. Some of those things are known for almost a decade now, but as long as people still think, that some savior may solve to problems for them, GMO, synthetic meat, big cooperation or even governments.
Reality is, we should eat way less meat, we need more small scale and local farming, organic is to prefer because it increases also biodiversity. All of this is well known, but is also highly inconvenient. Food has to become more expensive again,there is no way to change this and everybody has to pay full prize for their food, which includes water, destruction of the environment and all these factors. Also we have to stop throwing away half of our food, which is also contributing to climate change.
Pancake Mix
Copied someone else's pancake recipe
True, but it would be an enormous loss. It's an incredibly rich nutrient source.
Thankfully it's not going to happen.
You Are Viewtiful
Member
Methane tax.
Because the whole idea is to reduce carbon and methanne emissions from animal agricultural
To who exactly? Dairy is not needed...And just because something is an incredibly "rich source" doesn't make it necessary...
If you think this is normal then...
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=UcN7SGGoCNI
The survival of the world is a common good. Trying to regulate factors that lead to anthropocentric climate change that isn't fascism.
Less fat people around so.....
Just the half of it. Health care is also a big part as to why red meat would be taxed, which is why this is an efficient solution.
Pankratous
Member
Pretty unfair for me. I like about two food products that aren't meat or dairy.
Yeah fuck future generations because STEAK
It's all so depressing, because when a general "hey climate change is bad and here's all the bad things it will cause" discussion is raised, EVERYONE is all "this is terrible! how can we stop this??!!"
But then when the "here's the personal sacrifices we all can make to solve climate change" discussion comes up, 98% of the comments are like "LOL fukk dat need my bacon steak burgers 24/sevs sorry not sorry"
The cycle continues.
But then when the "here's the personal sacrifices we all can make to solve climate change" discussion comes up, 98% of the comments are like "LOL fukk dat need my bacon steak burgers 24/sevs sorry not sorry"
The cycle continues.
I bet it would be less harmful to reduce the subsidies than to put a consumption tax.
As for food production in general, we could reduce the footprint just by using more modern methods. Methane could be harvest on mass scale by using simple methods like collecting it with a backbag on a cow and farming can be much more efficient and resource saving by using vertical farming.
As for food production in general, we could reduce the footprint just by using more modern methods. Methane could be harvest on mass scale by using simple methods like collecting it with a backbag on a cow and farming can be much more efficient and resource saving by using vertical farming.
SeriuzBiznus
Member
As a lactose intolerant pescatarian, I fear this will drive an increase in price/demand for fish and almond milk. This sucks for everyone. :/
Can you imagine the financial, marketing, lobbying and public relations power of every single beef producer, fast food chain, convenience food firm, farmers co-op and restaurateur union in America?
This is the easiest slam dunk policy on the planet to get people to rally against. It will never ever ever ever happen, nothing even approaching it will ever see the light of day at any stage of legislation.
Goddamnit you guys can't even stop Trump from being elected and you think the most pie in the sky consumption tax ever conceived is something that is worth having energy expended on.
This is the easiest slam dunk policy on the planet to get people to rally against. It will never ever ever ever happen, nothing even approaching it will ever see the light of day at any stage of legislation.
Goddamnit you guys can't even stop Trump from being elected and you think the most pie in the sky consumption tax ever conceived is something that is worth having energy expended on.
- Status