Meat tax

[dbr10]

I have a lot of respect for Caroline Lucas but don't follow this at all; especially as I basically substitute meat for carbs

https://amp.theguardian.com/environ...tise-sustainability?__twitter_impression=true

 

[Muneeb]

Its any excuse to make money, as with the sugar tax. Instead of imposing sanctions/limits on manufacturers to produce less ****, they put tax on it, that makes selling it ok then apparently.

 

[Guzzler]

Lucas (vegetarian) should focus her efforts on the foodstuffs that actually harm us. When I was a child there was no such thing as a Food Bank (excepting soup kitchens for the homeless) and although there has always been child poverty how on earth is a parent to afford to give growing children a good source of protein in the 21st century? The affluent will remain healthier while those of us at the bottom have fewer choices. And please do not suggest soya, quorn, tofu or insects 'cos I ain't going there.

 

[DavidGrahamJones]

. . . . . . but don't follow this at all . . . . . .

Global warming!

I don't think it has anything to do with getting money and if it has it would be used to offset the affect on the environment.

Agriculture is responsible for an estimated 14 percent of the world's greenhouse gases. A significant portion of these emissions come from methane, which, in terms of its contribution to global warming, is 23 times more powerful than carbon dioxide. The U.S. Food and Agriculture Organization says that agricultural methane output could increase by 60 percent by 2030 [Source: Times Online]. The world's 1.5 billion cows and billions of other grazing animals emit dozens of polluting gases, including lots of methane. Two-thirds of all ammonia comes from cows.


Cows emit a massive amount of methane through belching, with a lesser amount through flatulence. Statistics vary regarding how much methane the average dairy cow expels. Some experts say 100 liters to 200 liters a day (or about 26 gallons to about 53 gallons), while others say it's up to 500 liters (about 132 gallons) a day. In any case, that's a lot of methane, an amount comparable to the pollution produced by a car in a day.

 

[Dark Horse]

The idea of a meat tax is not to prevent individual people from eating meat, it's to try and reduce (not eliminate) the amount of meat consumed at a population level. The reasoning behind this, as outlined in the article cited, is that intensive livestock rearing contributes significantly to greenhouse gas emissions, albeit not as much as use of fossil fuels. Currently, we are not meeting the targets for the reduction of greenhouse gases.

 

[Muneeb]

The idea of a meat tax is not to prevent individual people from eating meat, it's to try and reduce (not eliminate) the amount of meat consumed at a population level. The reasoning behind this, as outlined in the article cited, is that intensive livestock rearing contributes significantly to greenhouse gas emissions, albeit not as much as use of fossil fuels. Currently, we are not meeting the targets for the reduction of greenhouse gases.

All that happens is people can't afford the meat, so they eat processed rubbish, leading to more diseases and unhealthy lifestyles. It's all about money, the greenhouse gas targets are set by people, to be attained by the same people. They know what is attainable and what is not.

If you say the answer is to cut meat and eat veg only, what about the increased destruction to farm land, all the energy required to process crops, veg, fruit etc. All the indirect emissions are probably as bad as those suggested by meat. If everything was eaten in moderation there wouldn't be an issue. The issue is overeating and the lack of variety in our diets.

 

[Guzzler]

Global warming!

I don't think it has anything to do with getting money and if it has it would be used to offset the affect on the environment.

Agriculture is responsible for an estimated 14 percent of the world's greenhouse gases. A significant portion of these emissions come from methane, which, in terms of its contribution to global warming, is 23 times more powerful than carbon dioxide. The U.S. Food and Agriculture Organization says that agricultural methane output could increase by 60 percent by 2030 [Source: Times Online]. The world's 1.5 billion cows and billions of other grazing animals emit dozens of polluting gases, including lots of methane. Two-thirds of all ammonia comes from cows.


Cows emit a massive amount of methane through belching, with a lesser amount through flatulence. Statistics vary regarding how much methane the average dairy cow expels. Some experts say 100 liters to 200 liters a day (or about 26 gallons to about 53 gallons), while others say it's up to 500 liters (about 132 gallons) a day. In any case, that's a lot of methane, an amount comparable to the pollution produced by a car in a day.

I say cut down on cars. And I'd just love to see the gov brave enough to try that, look at what has happened in France over the last few weeks.

 

[bulkbiker]

is that intensive livestock rearing contributes significantly to greenhouse gas emissions

Except the "science" behind that statement is quite flaky..and seems to take little if any account of the soil regeneration that animal manure provides (as well as the carbon sink). Without the animals (and there wouldn't be anywhere near as many without the meat industry) how will the soil be replenished for all the vegetables to grow... chemical fertilisers? We all know they're not especially good for us.

 

[Dark Horse]

All that happens is people can't afford the meat, so they eat processed rubbish, leading to more diseases and unhealthy lifestyles. It's all about money, the greenhouse gas targets are set by people, to be attained by the same people. They know what is attainable and what is not.

If you say the answer is to cut meat and eat veg only, what about the increased destruction to farm land, all the energy required to process crops, veg, fruit etc. All the indirect emissions are probably as bad as those suggested by meat. If everything was eaten in moderation there wouldn't be an issue. The issue is overeating and the lack of variety in our diets.

With intensive livestock farming, the animals are fed on crops. Animals only convert a small amount of the energy they obtain from the crops into flesh (the rest of the energy is used to move about, keep warm etc.) so humans could obtain more energy by using land to grow crops for humans rather than crops for animals. Fewer crops would need to be grown and therefore fewer emissions produced. The OP was about a meat tax which could reduce meat consumption - it didn't imply that people would eat 'veg only'.

It is not necessary to replace any reduction in meat consumption with processed rubbish.

Although greenhouse gas targets are set in order to try and reduce the worst effects of global warming which would indeed be very expensive, I suspect that the humanitarian view of trying to avert human suffering is at least as important, if not more so.

 

[Dark Horse]

Except the "science" behind that statement is quite flaky..and seems to take little if any account of the soil regeneration that animal manure provides (as well as the carbon sink). Without the animals (and there wouldn't be anywhere near as many without the meat industry) how will the soil be replenished for all the vegetables to grow... chemical fertilisers? We all know they're not especially good for us.

The OP was about the reasoning behind a meat tax. It does not imply that there would be no meat industry. We already use chemical fertilisers to grow crops to feed animals.

 

[bulkbiker]

The OP was about the reasoning behind a meat tax. It does not imply that there would be no meat industry. We already use chemical fertilisers to grow crops to feed animals.

If the meat tax is effective it will reduce the consumption of meat which will reduce the absolute number of animals which could have devastating effects on crop production.. which may well end up reducing the population which would be where the benefits to the planet overall would come from. However they would be starving to death which may well be not the nicest way to reduce over population.

 

[Pinkorchid]

I have a lot of respect for Caroline Lucas but don't follow this at all; especially as I basically substitute meat for carbs

https://amp.theguardian.com/environ...tise-sustainability?__twitter_impression=true

They talked about how much animal rearing for food affects global warming on the BBC news this morning

 

[Mr_Pot]

I asked the driver where the rich black fertilizer they were spreading on the fields behind my house came from - turns out they have a contract with a nearby sewage works.

 

[dbr10]

Its any excuse to make money, as with the sugar tax. Instead of imposing sanctions/limits on manufacturers to produce less ****, they put tax on it, that makes selling it ok then apparently.

Plus Government in pocket of food industry

 

[dbr10]

Except the "science" behind that statement is quite flaky..and seems to take little if any account of the soil regeneration that animal manure provides (as well as the carbon sink). Without the animals (and there wouldn't be anywhere near as many without the meat industry) how will the soil be replenished for all the vegetables to grow... chemical fertilisers? We all know they're not especially good for us.

My thinking too. Don't fertilizers damage the environment

 

[Dark Horse]

If the meat tax is effective it will reduce the consumption of meat which will reduce the absolute number of animals which could have devastating effects on crop production.. which may well end up reducing the population which would be where the benefits to the planet overall would come from. However they would be starving to death which may well be not the nicest way to reduce over population.

If you are worried about a reduction in the availability of manure, it may help to realise that current reliance on manure is quite low. This article states that in the US, only 5% of US cropland is fertilised by manure. https://articles.extension.org/page...izer-and-energy:-june-2009-report-to-congress

I would imagine that UK use would be of the same order as that in the US. Even if a meat tax manage to reduce manure production by 10%, it would be unlikely to lead to people starving to death. In any case, I would imagine that if a tax like that was being considered, the government would commission reports to discover any adverse consequences of introducing the tax and would not implement it if starvation was likely.

 

[Dark Horse]

My thinking too. Don't fertilizers damage the environment

Yes, artificial fertilisers can damage the environment if not used appropriately. The same is true for manure. DEFRA gives guidance on their use to try and minimise this:- https://www.gov.uk/government/publi...ures-and-manufactured-fertilisers-on-farmland

 

[Guzzler]

If you are worried about a reduction in the availability of manure, it may help to realise that current reliance on manure is quite low. This article states that in the US, only 5% of US cropland is fertilised by manure. https://articles.extension.org/page...izer-and-energy:-june-2009-report-to-congress

I would imagine that UK use would be of the same order as that in the US. Even if a meat tax manage to reduce manure production by 10%, it would be unlikely to lead to people starving to death. In any case, I would imagine that if a tax like that was being considered, the government would commission reports to discover any adverse consequences of introducing the tax and would not implement it if starvation was likely.

Are we seeing the same government? You know, the one that sanctioned a man with T2 who was insulin dependant and was suffering with depression whose sister found him dead, his insulin useless because he hadn't enough money for electricity so the fridge was off? Governments do what is good for government ministers and their cronies.

 

[Bluetit1802]

My question is, why do cows etc belch and suffer flatulence? Could it be because they only eat plants? Just asking... no opinion.

 

[Brunneria]

Global warming!

I don't think it has anything to do with getting money and if it has it would be used to offset the affect on the environment.

Agriculture is responsible for an estimated 14 percent of the world's greenhouse gases. A significant portion of these emissions come from methane, which, in terms of its contribution to global warming, is 23 times more powerful than carbon dioxide. The U.S. Food and Agriculture Organization says that agricultural methane output could increase by 60 percent by 2030 [Source: Times Online]. The world's 1.5 billion cows and billions of other grazing animals emit dozens of polluting gases, including lots of methane. Two-thirds of all ammonia comes from cows.


Cows emit a massive amount of methane through belching, with a lesser amount through flatulence. Statistics vary regarding how much methane the average dairy cow expels. Some experts say 100 liters to 200 liters a day (or about 26 gallons to about 53 gallons), while others say it's up to 500 liters (about 132 gallons) a day. In any case, that's a lot of methane, an amount comparable to the pollution produced by a car in a day.

And then there is a much more balanced view, which shows where the other greenhouse gases come from, most of them without offsetting carbon fixing (that grazing animals do), and gosh, look how much of the greenhouse gas production comes from intensive farming (such as rice paddies).

https://e360.yale.edu/features/methane_riddle_what_is_causing_the_rise_in_emissions

Fossil fuels, fracking, rice paddy fields, over population, developing industry AND ruminants all play a part.
Plus, of course, if those ruminants are raised ethically and in an environmentally aware manner, their methane production is easily offset by their other impact on the environment - improved grassland, fixing C02, etc. etc.

https://foodprint.org/issues/raising-animals-sustainably-on-pasture/?cid=248

https://www.dpi.nsw.gov.au/animals-and-livestock/beef-cattle/husbandry/general-management/production

The soundbites that reach the media are NEVER the full story.