Viewing a single comment thread. View all comments

OkraSlush t1_irvpnvi wrote

Are people protesting carbon emissions taxation or is everyone just ok with this shit (it's not been implemented where I live yet)

4

jasusquisto t1_irvwel3 wrote

This happenned in the Netherlands first and it's gonna happen everywhere. People really do not associate farms and food as easily as you would expect. They think food os still gonna produce itself by magic. Plus , the alternative is going to be importing food from somewhere else and pretend we are green has we are doong with pretty much everything else already

6

YpsilonY t1_irw638t wrote

People also do not associate agriculture and climate change as easily as you would expect. If we don't reduce these emissions drastically, producing food will become a whole lot harder, and therefor more expensive, over the coming decades.

So what will it be? Medium price increase now, or increasingly larger price increases over the coming decades?

3

scottish_elena t1_irw84mk wrote

ok, first off, more than half of the food we produce is wasted because corporations would rather let people starve that let them eat food that they are not able to sell.

second, not because we reduce production of meat it means we dont have anything alse to eat, you know that alternatives to cows exist right?

0

jasusquisto t1_irw9277 wrote

Yeah i do , and those alternatives are the biggest part of the waste you mentioned. Now , will corporations say "hey now that people are buying more of this , i'm not wasting so i can actually be cheaper than before" or " due to the higher demand i have to jack up prices" ?

0

scottish_elena t1_iryavef wrote

Do you have a source to back up the claim that most of the wasted food can be considered "an alternative to meat"? and the hypotetical problem of prices can be fixed by supporting worker unions along with goverment regulations, its not hard to find solution to problems corporations made up for profits.

1

DBSTKjS t1_irvtei5 wrote

People should be okay with this.

−1

Sylvaritius t1_irvtsmo wrote

Theres a lot of ways to help the enviroment, but you really wanna ve careful when fucking with the food supply, more taxes on farmers just means more expensive food.

8

AdventurousListen483 t1_irvu73u wrote

No it means that certain foods are more expensive to produce, incentivizing the supply chain to decarbonize

5

krilltucky t1_irvv8fg wrote

Taxing big businesses is just taxing customers with extra steps

2

MeanGreanHare t1_irvw4bp wrote

Unless price controls are introduced, which tends to just make the whole situation worse.

1

Sylvaritius t1_irvufv6 wrote

So you expect cattle farmers to switch to plants over night?

−3

hilburn t1_irvwip8 wrote

Different feedstock can change the carbon footprint of cattle significantly

4

Sylvaritius t1_irvx6i2 wrote

Ah, thats pretty interesing, got any link for that? Would love to read about it. That sounds like a more reasonable switch.

−1

hilburn t1_irvyh9o wrote

https://www.wur.nl/en/article/changing-the-cows-diet-reduces-methane-and-nitrogen-emissions.htm

4

Sylvaritius t1_irvyvmo wrote

Thanks a lot, really interesting read.

1

hilburn t1_irvzah3 wrote

No worries, there was also something I saw a while ago about seaweed also being good but I can't remember the details

2

Sylvaritius t1_irvzup5 wrote

Oh that sounds interesing, lotta space in the ocean.

1

laggerzback t1_irw2om0 wrote

My thing is, a lot of people are equating gaseousness to the cause of the carbon footprint. But the thing is, how is that the contributing factor when at the end of the day, it’s all circulating around?

Like, i remember ads going around telling people to stop burping and farting to protect the ozone layer.

1

Sylvaritius t1_irw36dk wrote

The methane molecule is created by the cow, not ingested, its a reaction that happens as it digests food. The article linked mentions it as well.

1

laggerzback t1_irw7tv5 wrote

Not exactly the cow. It’s the bacteria that helps the cow digest the food.

Even for humans when we eat certain vegetables like beans or broccoli, we have bacteria that breaks down some of the food and it makes us gaseous.

Yeah, methane can carry some heat, but it’s not exactly what is making our environments bad. If anything, it’s transport more or less leaving the carbon footprint. Here, I have a video that explains the whole methane theory from 2006. It does explain the errors from the UN documentary and how animal populations from times before certain eras like colonialization were much larger and their output contributed very little to the carbon footprint.

One thing i do agree with is that there is a large problem with indusialization. And i would propose more innovative ideas like cloning meat to reduce the amount of animals being inhumanely treated and exploited in industrial livestock farms.

1

Sylvaritius t1_irw8w21 wrote

Yeah, i mean i dont think farming is the first place making cuts is relevant, its n incredibly important industry, and yeah absolutely, scalable lab meat is the future.

1

laggerzback t1_irwxiaq wrote

In a way? Yep. I think so. On one hand, i know it would be profitable for the meat industry in the long run. Means less livestock having to get killed and waste so much resources while at the same time it covers the ethics of cruel rearing that does happen in animal processing places.

On the other hand, you might have people who have an aversion to lab grown meat and they might give up meat altogether when they realize lab grown meat is everywhere....

1

Sylvaritius t1_irwxxcq wrote

Maybe yeah, i think there will still be a market for real meat no matter what, but if it can be significantly reduced in an economical way, then that could help free some land and help the enviroment.

1

laggerzback t1_irx0rba wrote

I’m sure there will be, but it’ll likely be local butcheries and Farmers’ Markets that sell them.

I know speaking in the US since I live here, Livestock farming takes a small percentage of land here. Most of our farms deal with commercial agriculture, like the farming of corn and soy. Given a lot of our processed foods contain them both or some byproduct, that meets demand of food here.

1

DBSTKjS t1_irvty7x wrote

Changing the food supply so that our food is far more plant based isn't just good, it's inevitable.

−8

Wookinbing t1_irw3abn wrote

Plant base foods also emit a ton of carbon emissions in their respective industries. Furthermore studies have shown cattle can be a carbon sink if their diet is grassfed rather than the cowcorn we normally feed them. Lastly we got a carbon tax here in canada and it made not much of a difference in emissions. It made everything else much more expensive though.

5

jasusquisto t1_irvwtl6 wrote

Nothing wrong with plant based food but it won't naturally equate clean production. You still have GMOs and pesticides that you should ban or control properly

−1

DBSTKjS t1_irvx8bu wrote

Oh, of course there's other things unsustainable practices in industrial scale farming, but we can do more than one thing.

Phasing out meat from our diets is just a matter of thermodynamics. The amount of resources needed to feed animals to get them ready for butchering would produce more food if put towards growing food.

4

jasusquisto t1_irvxh9a wrote

Undeniable yep , but still the taxing won't really produce this kind of outcome i'm afraid.

0

YpsilonY t1_irw6mfv wrote

Who's that? It increases the price for animal based food without an increase in plant based food. Thereby making the former less and the latter more competitive. That is literally the way you control consumption in a capitalist system.

3

jasusquisto t1_irw7f0r wrote

Where does it not increase the price of plant based food? If we shift into plant based food without guaranteeing the increase of production , it will increase the plant based food price for sure. I'm not saying it is what i want to happen i'm saying it is what is likely to happen .

0

Raz0rking t1_irvxzbt wrote

>You still have GMOs
>
>that you should ban or control properly

Why banning gmo?

2

jasusquisto t1_irvyjgd wrote

The banning was for pesticides. Sorry , bad phrasing.

2

ash_274 t1_irw1q7k wrote

Go ahead an ban it. Sri Lanka would like a word

1

jasusquisto t1_irw1wgp wrote

It wasn't all that simple in sri lanka. The guy went balistic and did it overnight.

2

ash_274 t1_irw3p7e wrote

Wether you do it overnight or over a decade you have the same problem: you go from feeding 3000 people per acre to only feeding 1500 people per acre. Unless you have half your agricultural land unused, can create more arable land (difficult to do quickly and long-term), your economy can afford supplemental imports in perpetuity from trusted sources that would never put political pressure on you some time in the future, or you can convince your population to starve or die off willingly, you’re going to have a bad time

0

OkraSlush t1_irvtk8n wrote

Give me a good logical reason why I should be taxed for a natural emission

−4

DBSTKjS t1_irvtpyq wrote

Industrial scale animal farming is natural? News to me

8