• 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

Status
Not open for further replies.

Hypron

Member
Can a vegan alternative with the same nutritional value be had for the same price?

The answer is no, not even remotely close.

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.
 

Hydrus

Member
Everything in this post is the opposite of what is actually true for most of the world's population. First sentence is patently false.

Most of the world eats a vast majority vegan diet with tiny amounts of meat and/or dairy to compliment that diet.

LOL. You just pulled that out of your ass or don't live in the US or any other major country.
 
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.

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.
 

Hypron

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.

Why did you contradict my initial post then? Because that's all it was saying.
 

Redzap

Neo Member
Can a vegan alternative with the same nutritional value be had for the same price?

The answer is no, not even remotely close.

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
 
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.

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
 

Faddy

Banned
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.
 
This is an interesting article that deals with this topic.
https://www.nytimes.com/2017/03/21/dining/beef-consumption-emissions.html?_r=1

The last decade or so has brought ample evidence that Americans are gradually changing their diets, driven by health concerns and other factors.

But a new study points to one change that is starker than many have thought: Americans cut their beef consumption by 19 percent — nearly one-fifth — in the years from 2005 to 2014, according to research released on Wednesday by the Natural Resources Defense Council.
 

Poona

Member
Meat and dairy is high-quality food and a vital source of nutrients. You shouldn't tax that.

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).
 

Hypron

Member
...because cost and convenience are an integral part of the conversation whether it was directly addressed in your post or not.

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.
 

Fuchsdh

Member
Ok, I've got to call bullshit on this line:

Other recent studies have found that not only is Big Agriculture incapable of "feeding the world" as biochemical giants like Monsanto have promised, but that the focus must actually be on empowering local, small-scale farmers.

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 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.

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.
 

Stanng243

Member
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.
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.
 

Boney

Banned
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.
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

Despite 'Cloak of Moral Necessity,' Report Shows Big Ag Can't Feed the World
The report comes as powerful multinationals like Monsanto double down on their call for increasing industrial farming to help "feed the world."

Defenders of industrial farming often point to its capacity to produce food on a global scale as the trade-off for its environmentally destructive methods—but a new report finds that, even in its ostensible strengths, Big Ag falls all too short.

The green research and advocacy organization Environmental Working Group (EWG) on Wednesday released a report titled Feeding The World: Think U.S. Agriculture Will End World Hunger? Think Again, which found that the vast majority of food produced by U.S. industrial farms last year went to the most developed nations in the world, while the countries most in need of aid—including Haiti, Yemen, and Ethiopia—received half of one percent.

Which falls in line with how most "philantro-capitalism" invests money for foreign aid through national 1st world NGO's.
 

Trokil

Banned
I'm always kind of baffled with the responses in these threads. Hopefully it's because it's a vocal minority that it always attracts. Hopefully.

Anytime there is some doomsday global warming news everyone screams at the top of the longs that something should be done. Pointing fingers and corporations and governments that haven't done enough to tackle the problem (rightfully so). But the second someone advocates an idea that could help the global warming problem that somehow affects the individual, people turn their backs and dismiss the idea right away. Some just go fuck it, I enjoy beef too much. Some try to dismiss the idea that the beef/diary industry is that much of a burden on the environment. Some try to reason that the impact of such an idea is too small so why bother anyway.

I hope I won't sound too hostile, since it's not ment that way. But refusing to stop eat beef, or place some higher tax on it, is just so incredibly selfish. Just stop and think what little of an impact that will have on your life. It's a meat you probably don't continually eat throughout the day and/or every day. You'll probably have to think of something else to eat for maybe two or three days a week. That's it. It's not difficult. It's not that inconvenient. The only reason why someone would continue to eat beef is because they like the taste of it. Yet by deciding to eat something else you can actually do something about climate change. However small that might on a personal scale. It all adds up to dramatic results on the larger scale.

As corny as it may sound, but be the change you want to see in the world. If you can't even bother to change one minuscule part of your life for selfish reasons, you honestly don't got the right to complain about companies or governments for not making huge changes.

Edit: Slightly off the point but also not. People need to realize that things need to change in order to combat global warming. And those changes will influence your personal lives. Be it paying more for certain things, higher taxes, removal of certain travel options or products, what ever. It will not all be fun. But we can't have our cake and eat it too. Not anymore.

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
Dairy is not vital. The survival of the human race does not rely on whether or not there are cows around producing milk

True, but it would be an enormous loss. It's an incredibly rich nutrient source.

Thankfully it's not going to happen.
 

Frodo

Member
That is completely okay if you want poor people to pay for something big corporations are mostly responsible for.








Terrible idea.
 

Maengun1

Member
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.
 

Doikor

Member
I think that it is stupid to make individual taxes for products to combat climate change. The real tool was invented years ago. Carbon tax. It is the largest contributor to climate change so make producing it more expensive making cleaner alternatives cheaper in comparison.
 

Neo C.

Member
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.
 

Alienfan

Member
God I can't believe in 2017 (and GAF out of all places), people still believe that milk is basically a necessity. The milk in schools and dairy propaganda have had such long lasting effects.
 
As a lactose intolerant pescatarian, I fear this will drive an increase in price/demand for fish and almond milk. This sucks for everyone. :/
 

Boney

Banned
Seems that most people are somehow skipping over this being a health benefit policy on top of just climate.

Low income families still have to pay a bunch for hospitalization and such.
 

klonere

Banned
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.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Top Bottom