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.

 

Help ATS via PayPal:
learn more

UK Researchers: Tax Food to Reduce Climate Change

page: 3
18
<< 1  2   >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Nov, 20 2016 @ 07:53 AM
link   
a reply to: LABTECH767

But this is a classic social justice mindset.

Group A has more of a thing than Group B, so rather than find ways to ensure that Group B get enough or can gain their own access, we assume that Group A only has that access because they are being in some way unfair or exploitative and so we look for ways to bring them down to Group B's level.

In this case, GroupA only has that access to better food because they are being unfairly exploitative of the Earth Mother Gaia. So the punitive "sin" tax is proposed as a means of leveling their access to be more like Group B - the poor. You'll note that the poor apparently have a level of access the researchers deem to be virtuous because at the end, it is admitted that a way must be found NOT to unduly punish them, and if that is the case, then they must be assumed to have a level of access that is desired.

So the researchers are socialistically leveling the playing field with their tax by bringing Group A down to the level of Group B.




posted on Nov, 20 2016 @ 09:45 AM
link   
a reply to: ketsuko

I do still vehemently disagree with them, they have taken one subject out of context to the entire system and then proposed a method of adjusting that one thing, it is like a plumber wrapping plumbers tape around a section of leaky pipe while the pipe is still just pouring water out it's end as that water is not being controlled right in the first place.

My opinion of them is that they are out of touch at the very best and callous at the very worst, taxing food is an economic choice with dire social consequences and not a cure for the problem they envisage, it is at the very best a small regional stop gap that can not and never will address the issue they claim it is addressing.

There are many area's in which cattle and sheep farming has damaged the eco system, china, south america and other places then there is the whole problem of palm oil plantation's destroying south east asian rain forest's, often the grazing land's are only good for a few years then the nutrient's are gone so the sheep farmers and cattle farmers move onto virgin forrest and burn it down to create more fresh grazing land leaving a wastland behind them.

Replanting those forests, paying those POOR farmers enough so that they don't have to steal land for there animal's and helping these nation's at there people level (and not there institutional and corrupt level were the money would just go down the plug hole so through the back door) would be far better and more productive method's of helping to fix the problem.

There are two solution's, one is to cull the human race, this is a long held and favored approach of the extreme elitists and those that see themselves as superior human's, they are simply wrong and will lose as people will find a way so there idea fail's anyway.

And the other is Education to enlighten and broaden the horizon's of these disadvantaged people to both give them better opportunity's and show them the damage they are causing to there own world, infrastructure in those poorest nation's to help them manage and maintain a decent standard of living, opportunity's for woman in those nation's (this provides population control anyway as if more life choices are open than simply being chattal with children many woman will choose them) and advanced scientific based solution's such as atmospheric carbon extraction techniques which poor nation's could be paid to implement and become far more lucrative than the carbon point economy can ever be on it's own.



posted on Nov, 20 2016 @ 09:55 AM
link   
a reply to: LABTECH767


There are many area's in which cattle and sheep farming has damaged the eco system, china, south america and other places then there is the whole problem of palm oil plantation's destroying south east asian rain forest's, often the grazing land's are only good for a few years then the nutrient's are gone so the sheep farmers and cattle farmers move onto virgin forrest and burn it down to create more fresh grazing land leaving a wastland behind them.


I thank god almighty that this kind of thinking was not in place in ancient Europe or the early united states which were largely forested.

Did they own the land? If they own it it's their business, if they don't you are dealing with a commons issue. The cattle and sheep herder example is the most common example of tragedy of the commons. What fixes this? private property rights.



posted on Nov, 20 2016 @ 10:15 AM
link   
a reply to: ketsuko

Exactly right.

I have watched the concept of a 'sin tax' for quite some time. It started with alcohol and tobacco, under the excuse that these were 'sins of the wealthy' and thus not necessary and subject to higher taxation. The it became more open... they were something that should be discouraged for health reasons and the tax was a disincentive to purchase and use. Now cigarettes are $50 a carton (or higher) and the excuse is that the tax offsets societal cost of health care.

The real reason is that those in government want everyone else to do exactly as they're told.

Now we have the food tax, under the guise of Global Warming. Again, the guise is a cover, an excuse. The real reason is that we the people have the audacity to eat meat when told not to. They tried legislation for years now; it never went over. The next step is to tax it out of existence. Just like a Constitution Amendment couldn't stamp out alcohol and legislation/scare tactics couldn't stamp out tobacco, but taxation could reduce them and pay for future attempts to stamp them out.

"Demolition Man" was truly prophetic.

TheRedneck



posted on Nov, 20 2016 @ 03:04 PM
link   
a reply to: TheRedneck

Oh, the really insidious part of "sin" taxes like the tobacco tax is when they actually start to work.

Because they never, ever put the revenue into closed loop programs, the government has become dependent on that money. So when the revenue falls because the tax actually works as they told us they wanted it to, they have programs that now need funding. Oh, now what can we punish those people for doing?

This is why, despite not being a smoker and being vehemently against the habit as a nasty one that no one should take up, I will never, ever vote for a tobacco tax increase. It will eventually become my tax increase when the smokers either quit or die or move where the taxes are less.

Every other "sin" tax will operate the same way. Look at gasoline taxes in some West Coast states. They got high enough the revenue was lost and instead of rebudgeting, they started talking about simply taxing people by the miles driven ... after those folks changed behaviors by purchasing electric cars or much more fuel efficient ones.



posted on Nov, 20 2016 @ 03:45 PM
link   

originally posted by: jellyrev
a reply to: LABTECH767


There are many area's in which cattle and sheep farming has damaged the eco system, china, south america and other places then there is the whole problem of palm oil plantation's destroying south east asian rain forest's, often the grazing land's are only good for a few years then the nutrient's are gone so the sheep farmers and cattle farmers move onto virgin forrest and burn it down to create more fresh grazing land leaving a wastland behind them.


I thank god almighty that this kind of thinking was not in place in ancient Europe or the early united states which were largely forested.

Did they own the land? If they own it it's their business, if they don't you are dealing with a commons issue. The cattle and sheep herder example is the most common example of tragedy of the commons. What fixes this? private property rights.





Obviously you think it is ok to go around wiping out the eco system, now as for what we did in Europe that was indeed a long time ago and on a global scale far less destructive than the destruction of the tropical rainforest is today, also the global population was barely a fraction of today's population.

Now I believe in putting people first but we have to safe guard the environment or there simply will be no future for the people, God made us to be stewards of the earth unless you forgot it is his and we were given control over it not to destroy it but to keep it since you bring the lord into it via your comment.

I suggest you go and have a look at the effect's of deforestation in these tropical zone's, flooding, land erosion of deforested land which also then most often become's barren as there is not much nutrition in the soil and can after unsustainable farming and grazing no longer support cattle or crop's or indeed much of anything else once it has been raped of what small nutrient content the often shallow topsoil contain's, this is NOT the same as the stone age European farmers whom settled then farmed there land's, learning crop rotation for multiple generation but it is actually driven often simply by both greed and also most often by abject poverty and people with no other choice in a world were the rich fat kid get's all the pie so they have to get there's somewhere else, YES these people should come first but you have to balance there welfare with that of the children they are impoverishing in future generation's through the wanton destruction of the environment, they are not the guilty party as how can they see above the canopy of there world but those looking down on them from there ivory palaces with there bank account's so full that those poor farmers and miner's simply have no chance of ever getting that rich do have to take account of the action's there little pyramid scheme has caused.

WAKE UP if not for your own sake them for the sake of your kid's and there kid's and there kid's.

www.rainforestconcern.org...
rainforests.mongabay.com...

Now note this point, the US has more than ample land to feed itself with cattle farming, rich and good land and you can better regulate and monitor the health of those cattle and therefore the quality of there beef but it is cost alone that drives the cheap south american beef market and put's how many of your own Ranchers out of business, most of the US ranches are also on natural grassland's and open plain's so actually less ecological damage (Except the sustained over grazing that can also deplete the soil).

So the next time you tuck into a Mcburnburntherainforest burger (And I like them too but it has to concern you at some level) think about that.

edit on 20-11-2016 by LABTECH767 because: (no reason given)



posted on Nov, 20 2016 @ 03:53 PM
link   
a reply to: LABTECH767

Do you know why you and I care?

We can afford to. That's the cold truth. Take away our ability to rest secure in the knowledge that we know where our next meal is coming from and neither of us will care at all where our next meal comes from or what it means to the environment. All we'll care about is that tonight, we will eat, and tomorrow that fight to secure food begins all over again.

No one in the US cared one rip about the buffalo until they could afford to. No one in the Amazon will care about the rainforests until they can afford to.

But by all means, stupid researchers, lets make everyone poor like those people in the rainforest.



posted on Nov, 20 2016 @ 04:01 PM
link   
a reply to: ketsuko

That is sadly very true, I alluded to that point but you hit it more squarely on the face, you know though I do believe the earth could easily sustain a far more and massively greater population than are even alive today but it need's to be done in a more intelligent manner and our form of civilization with it's flawed economic's system that put's money before people will never achieve that, we need to prioritize education, quality of life and sustainable development, also to use the vast untapped space above us and even below us with modern scientific engineering to create farm's were we could simply not do so in the past, sadly this will remain a pipe dream as long as our world is ran by the like's of the Troika and other international gangster's.

Some idea's are sea farm's, subterranean hydroponic's farming (Far more yield but also far more intensive but as automation become's more advanced?), sky farm's, think tower block's and skyscrapers but with field's instead of floor's, there really is far more than enough space to both feed the entire population a hundred time's over and leave the eco system intact but greed once again talk's over common sense.

edit on 20-11-2016 by LABTECH767 because: (no reason given)



posted on Nov, 21 2016 @ 02:22 PM
link   

originally posted by: Blastoff
I don't know where they get these crazy ideas from. So you have to pay taxes for damages to the environment? And because of what you eat, of all things!
Everything has to be in the form of punishment after punishment.
Here's an idea: Instead of being taxed for what you do, why not get TAX BREAKS for things you don't do?



Hmmmm, is the NWO really a plot by Catholics? J/K




top topics



 
18
<< 1  2   >>

log in

join