It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

Denmark ethics council calls for tax on red meat to fight 'ethical problem' of climate change

page: 4
9
<< 1  2  3   >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Apr, 28 2016 @ 09:44 AM
link   

originally posted by: Sargeras
a reply to: SLAYER69

It's desperation, they are desperate to make everything man's fault so they can justify taxing everyone to death.



In fact it is a bit more complex than that.

We know for a fact that man has an impact on global warming and therefore the climate change we are experiencing.
We also know that we must act to slow this down or even reverse it.

The tax proposal is just that - somone thinking that one of the things we could do was to have tax on meat as they have bought into the idea that cows are a major producer of methane.
They do not consider the amount of methane vegetarians produce.

They also do not consider that those cows might be balanced by all the fauna that we have made extinct.

Whether they have taken into consideration that we are more and more people on earth is anyone's guess.

What we do know is that what we do now is wrong, and if we don't start acting soon it will be too late.

It is very well that stupid people say that the earth naturally has temperature variances. But why don't those people tell us what we are going to do to survive. The stupid people keep coming up with small details and fail to consider the large picture.
When the water level rises where will people move to? Inland they say.
Very well. Who will buy their water front property? Noone.
How will they pay for new housing? Especially if all the American wealth (?) is going to be spent on making America great again.

So we get the occasional proposal as to what can be done to slow down the problem ahead.

The cow tax is one such proposal. Not meant to suck people dry. No - it is meant to make people buy less beef.

If some Texan beef producer gets offended. So what? What we should concern ourselves with is how to stay alive as humanity rather than individual people.




posted on Apr, 28 2016 @ 10:32 AM
link   

originally posted by: SLAYER69

originally posted by: 727Sky

It said that in the long term, the tax should apply to all foods at varying levels depending on climate impact.


WTF!

This sounds like they're gearing up to start taxing people on every type of food in the not too distant future, not just red meat. So now, not only are people being taxed for the work they do, they will start being taxed for simply needing to eat.

"Depending on Climate impact"

Before mankind raised vast herds of cattle to slaughter, Mother nature had even larger herds of wild animals worldwide in staggering numbers and varieties and functioned just fine. Here in the US back in the day, when settlers first crossed the American continent they were awe struck over the shear size and volume of the great wild Buffalo/Bison herds which were indigenous and later, replaced by livestock.

But,

The Danish are free to do what they wish in their own country.


This is the sort of thing that makes me a proud "denier", their solutions always involve taking more money.
It's almost becoming a religion with the only difference being the collection plate isn't optional.



posted on Apr, 28 2016 @ 01:28 PM
link   
a reply to: ketsuko

I'm not trying to shame anyone for eating meat, something I've repeated as nauseum on ATS... just the usual right wing spin on anyone that isn't like them.

I buy and cook meat for my son (sustainably)... I raised him on no red meat, poultry and fish were fine and I always told him when he was older if he wanted to eat red meat he would be able to make that choice, even though I strongly believe it's wrong and unnecessary to eat meat. That's MY belief, my son doesn't share it.

Thanks though for yet another (incorrect) assumption.

I don't judge people for eating meat, most people are raised this way but if you're an adult surely you can apply some common sense and realize it's not good for you or the planet to eat red meat everyday. Once a week is plenty.
edit on 4/28/2016 by Kali74 because: (no reason given)



posted on Apr, 28 2016 @ 02:11 PM
link   
a reply to: Kali74


I don't judge people for eating meat, most people are raised this way but if you're an adult surely you can apply some common sense and realize it's not good for you or the planet to eat red meat everyday. Once a week is plenty.


... ah no .... not judging ... of course not.



posted on Apr, 28 2016 @ 02:25 PM
link   
a reply to: 727Sky


We'd have to believe we're having an effect on the climate in the first place to see how reasonable and necessary this is. Otherwise of course - it's just a conspiracy :-)

But, it's not like there isn't a lot of information out there. Good for Denmark



People Still Don't Get the Link between Meat Consumption and Climate Change

Over the last decade or so, the media have slowly but steadily fed the public information about the staggering impact of our meat-eating habits on the environment, and on climate change in particular. For instance, one recent study found that a global transition toward low-meat diets could reduce the costs of climate change mitigation by as much as 50 percent by 2050.


Growing food for the world’s burgeoning population is likely to send greenhouse gas emissions over the threshold of safety, unless more is done to cut meat consumption, a new report has found.

A widespread switch to vegetarianism would cut emissions by nearly two-thirds, it said.

In three decades, emissions related to agriculture and food production are likely to account for about half of the world’s available “carbon budget” - the limited amount of carbon dioxide and its equivalents that can be poured into the atmosphere if we are to hold global warming to no more than 2C.



There is extensive research showing the outsize impacts of animal agriculture on the environment. The Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations (FAO) has concluded that "the livestock sector emerges as one of the top two or three most significant contributors to the most serious environmental problems, at every scale from local to global."

It's not hard to see why. The process of converting energy and protein in animal feed into meat calories and protein for humans is highly inefficient:

Land. Animal agriculture already constitutes the largest human use of land worldwide. More than 60 percent of corn and barley, and more than 97 percent of soymeal, becomes farm animal feed, according to the FAO report Livestock's Long Shadow.

Animal feed. According to a study in Ambio, in research led by environmental scientist Vaclav Smil, it takes 9.3 pounds (4.2 kilograms) of feed to produce 2 lbs (1 kg) of edible chicken, 23.6 lbs (10.7 kg) of feed to produce 2 lbs (1 kg) of pork and 69.9 lbs (31.7 kg) of feed to produce 2 lbs (1 kg) of beef.

Water. The farm-animal sector is also a major consumer of scarce water resources. Animal products generally have larger water footprints than non-animal products, according to a study published in 2012 in the journal Ecosystems by Mesfin Mekonnen and Arjen Hoekstra, professors at the University of Twente.

Greenhouse gas emissions. Animal agriculture is responsible for approximately 14.5 percent of human-induced greenhouse gas emissions, according to the FAO. Studies from the United States, India, the U.K. and Italy, among others, have shown plant-based agriculture has a lower carbon footprint.

For example, a 2014 study led by Henk Westhoek for the PBL Netherlands Environmental Assessment Agency, and appearing in Global Environmental Change, found a 50 percent reduction in all EU consumption of meat, dairy and eggs would cut agricultural greenhouse gas emissions by 19 to 42 percent.

LiveScience


edit on 4/28/2016 by Spiramirabilis because: We...



posted on Apr, 28 2016 @ 02:28 PM
link   
a reply to: ketsuko



... ah no .... not judging ... of course not.



How was that judging?

This behavior is exactly why we can't have nice things

We can't even talk about it?
edit on 4/28/2016 by Spiramirabilis because: (no reason given)



posted on May, 7 2016 @ 10:52 PM
link   
a reply to: HolgerTheDane2




The cow tax is one such proposal. Not meant to suck people dry. No - it is meant to make people buy less beef. If some Texan beef producer gets offended. So what? What we should concern ourselves with is how to stay alive as humanity rather than individual people.


So all's fair in the goal of humanity surviving? How about a special tax on countries like the US that use fossil fuels when invading other nations for resources. The US should pay a higher percentage, after all they get the benefits of the Invasion and cheaper oil.

Why should people buy less beef when cars spew out carbon by-products. You really think cows fart more than cars?



new topics

top topics



 
9
<< 1  2  3   >>

log in

join