The above image is from a NASA news release discussing that interactions with aerosols boost the global warming potential of gases such as methane. A study published in Science by a team led by Drew Shindell of NASA concludes that chemical interactions between emissions cause more global warming than previously estimated by the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC).
"We've known for years that methane and carbon monoxide have a warming effect, but our new findings suggest these gases have a significantly more powerful warming impact than previously thought," said Shindell.
Many atmospheric pollutants compete for access to hydroxyl radicals (OH), highly reactive molecules that "scrub" the atmosphere of pollutants. Carbon monoxide has an indirect radiative effect by elevating concentrations of methane and tropospheric ozone through scavenging of atmospheric constituents that would otherwise destroy the methane and ozone in transformations that reduce their impact as greenhouse gases. Over time, hydroxyl converts methane (CH4) into carbon dioxide (CO2), which is less potent as a greenhouse gas.
The study showed that increases in global methane emissions have caused a 26% decrease in hydroxyl. Methane now persists longer in the atmosphere, before getting transformed into the less potent carbon dioxide. At the same time, methane levels are rising, believed to be caused by rapidly growing industrialization in Asia and rising wetland emissions in the Arctic and tropics, as shown on the edited NOAA image on the left.
This makes it extra important to look at ways to reduce methane emissions. Production and transport of livestock and their feed accounts for nearly 80% of agricultural emissions, through release of gases such as nitro-oxide and carbon dioxide, but mainly in the form of methane.
Animals like cows and pigs are responsible for huge amounts of methane. Enteric fermentation and manure together respresent about 35-40 percent of all anthropogenic methane emissions, according to the U.N. report Livestock's Long Shadow.
A recent analysis published by the Worldwatch Institute estimates that livestock may be responsible for more than half of all anthropogenic emissions. The estimates are reached when using a higher warming potential of methane, while taking additional things into account, such as the meanwhile higher numbers of livestock, as well as byproducts such as leather and fur, and packaging, waste disposal and medical care associated with livestock products. Furthermore, the estimates take into account the respiration of 56 billion livestock (FAO figures 2007).
Fees on the sale of livestock products therefore makes a lot of sense. We could leave it up to local politics to work out how high such fees should be, but a flat 10% fee on all sales of livestock products looks like a good start. The fees could be higher the more methane was released, which would go hand in hand with mandatory disclosure on livestock products of the amount of greenhouse gases that was needed to produce and ship them. Once there's a good system in place that displays how many greenhouse gases were released in production, fees could vary accordingly. There could be different fees, even a gliding scale proportional to the emissions. This would encourage research into different diets for cows or somehow replacing the methane-producing bacteria inside a cow's gut.
As indicated on above image, the proceeds of fees on livestock products are best used to help fund rebates on biochar, which can help improve soil quality and offset emissions caused by livestock.
This post has been updated - the original post is still visible at Tax the sale of meat!
recommend this
email
print
link to this page
Comments: 72
http://www.gather.com/viewArticle.jsp?articleId=281474977122779
Remember, Hitler was a vegetarian.
And if you want to reduce methane, stop eating beans and brocolli. I say a TAX on VEGANISM!
Sheeesh.
No. It would be a better idea to capture the methane and make hydrogen from it. Great idea for renewable energy.
Cindy: "Hitler was a vegetarian."
So was Gandhi. What's your point?
I've got to admit that you sure do like your taxes! Bear in mind that man is by nature, a omnivore and a predator. Meat is the only sure source of adequately balanced proteins. Much beef is grown on pasture land that will not support any food crop. It is very marginal land and takes a lot of it to fee a single beef critter.
As far as the methane produced by cattle and pigs, how much is produced by humans? Perhaps we should find a way to recycle this methane. I cannot fathom the idea of doing away with animals in order to reduce the greenhouse gas produced by animals.
I don't believe that taxes should be used as a means of motivating and manipulating people. Purely my ethical concept. The only legitimate reason for taxes is to fund the government in the functions it performs. But it is a novel idea!
By nature, people think and will see that what I advocate makes sense. There are many alternative sources of protein, but if you must eat, then choose something like kangaroo meat that doesn't appear to have the methane problem. Methane that results from manure (such as pigs, but also humans) can be captured to mitigate the problem and, as Steve says, can be used to produce hydrogen. If such capture was feasible, then I would support subsidizing that as well from the proceeds of a tax on meat.
I understand what you are saying and you have a lot of good ideas. My own personal philosophy is that doing it by taxation is an unethical use of taxation and should be avoided on purely ethical reasons.
Secondly, I don't believe that people will welcome taxes on a product which brings your disapproval any more than any other tax and becomes, for political reasons, highly impractical. If people want and support that idea then I guess that is great, but I strongly doubt it. It is punitive to all portions of the beef, mutton and pork industries and they will definitely resent being singled out to support this cause.
I don't eat that much meat any more but I try to get four ounces of meat a day to keep a balanced diet and get proper protein balance. What about the millions of deer, sheep, mountain goats, elk and other wild game that inhabits our nation? They certainly produce methane. Should we avoid the tax on beef by killing elk and eliminating that elk's methane? Most elk, deer, sheep, are wild and don't have owners to charge a tax of.
I'm convinced that people will welcome such a tax, once they understand the problems caused by methane and once they see that such a tax is the best way to respond to these problems, especially if - as I suggest - the proceeds of such a tax will be used to decrease lifestyle responsible for the problem. This combination of tax and subsidies will be doubly effective in helping people to make the shift towards eating less meat.
I am sceptical about farmers and cowboys who profit from cattle and sheep or herdsmen who keep a large amount of goats (to buy women and the like). Too large densities of such animals causes environmental problems, as sheep and goats tear out vegetation roots and all, resulting in desertification of already arid areas. By contrast, kangaroos and deer can live in the wild without the irigation, the human protection and the deforestation that typically goes hand in hand with farmers wanting to have cattle and planting feed needed for this cattle. Farmers have too often sought to kill kangaroos, deer and other animals that live in the wild under the pretence that such animals were pests and vermin. Such cowboys typically ride on horses and hunt and shoot such animals, boasting about eating their meat and stuffing them. It's all part of a culture that should be exposed for the impact it has on the environment.
Note that I'm not seeking to prohibit such lifestyles and cultures. I'm merely advocating a tax of 10%, which doesn't even come close to compensating for the damage these lifestyles impose on society at large. But at least, when combined with the proper subsidies, such a tax will go some way to make people shift towards better lifestyles.
Speaking of destruction, have you ever seen what a herd of elephants do to the land?
Have you ever seen what a herd of caribou do? Have you any touch of reality of the natural world?
I think you are a treading in dangerous waters when you want to:
1. TAX TAX TAX TAX when we have MORE than enough tax bills as it is.
2. Dictate what people eat
3. Force your lifestyle on others
4. Make people "conform" to your way of thinking.
That is dangerous indeed.
I didn't work this hard to be at the top of the food chain to start eating like herbivour prey.
It's not your money - the 10% tax that I propose doesn't even come close to compensating for the harm inflicted by meat. I merely propose a combination of tax and targeted subsidies as the quickest way to achieve change.
Cindy: "why do you want to dictate what I can and can not eat?"
Note that the protection and subsidies that many farmers receive is paid from our taxes. Nevertheless, I see tax as a lesser form of force compared to regulatory control through standards or outright prohibition. I don't propose prohibition of meat or compulsory eating of certain diets. I do not seek to force a specific lifestyle onto others. Instead, I propose a 10% tax on meat with the proceeds used to enable change. So, if you don't want to change, you can pay the tax.
Yes, termites produce a lot of methane too, that's why we need to look well after trees, to minimise termites. Similarly, we need to avoid overpopulation of elephants, caribou, wild goats, mountain sheep, etc. The fact that many other animals also produce methane is no justification for breeding cattle and eating their meat. The very practices of breeding large herds of animals also causes deforestation and desertification, which in turn invites termites to clean up dead wood. Good land practices will avoid methane, including the methane resulting from floods that cause bogs and swamps. Global warming comes with more extreme weather conditions, so we need to prepare against floods and droughts by building dams, dykes, canals, etc.
Cindy: "TAX when we have MORE than enough tax bills as it is."
Currently, most taxes come from people who work and from succesful companies, while much of the proceeds goes to people who don't work and are unsuccessful. A lot of money also is wasted in the centralised bureaucracy. This situation should indeed change.
Cindy: "I didn't work this hard to be at the top of the food chain to start eating like herbivour prey."
What is the "top" of the food chain is a matter of perspective. I certainly do not regard eating meat as the summit of civilized behavior. If eating meat makes someone feel superior, then that can be regarded that as an indication of a lack of intelligence, which would put such a person at the bottom-end (if you like the arse-end) of civilization. I can understand that you feel frustrated at having to pay a tax, if you it makes you feel like prey of a predatory system that taxes people to perpetuate itself. As I said above, I do agree that this should change. However, what I propose is a good tax while the proceeds should be used to encourage people to move away from eating meat. Just look at the tax as a contribution that you can make to help the environment and thus yourself!
The 10% tax that I propose is to be levied on the sale of meat, so as long as you don't sell the meat, you won't have to pay it. If you do decide to sell, the 10% pales in comparison to the costs you mention.
Billy: "Are you also going to tax the food I grow in my own garden and the eggs that my chickens produce?"
Again, as long as you don't sell meat, you will not have to pay this tax. I don't propose a tax on eggs, but I do believe that a tax on eggs from 'chicken batteries' would be widely supported.
Billy: "Global warming is a total myth".
Sorry to see you discredit yourself and put yourself in the lunatic corner, Billy, it doesn't help you convince people on possible points where you may make sense.
Billy: "you lefties continue to grab at straws in your feeble attempt to turn a FREE country into a communist/socialist state. Liberalism is a mental disorder and this article demonstrates that fact."
I don't support socialism, Billy. I don't propose to tax people who work and are successful, in order to hand over that money to people who don't work and are unsuccessful. Instead, I propose to tax things that are harmful, such as greenhouse gas emissions. Were the proposed taxes on greenhouse gas emissions used to support the poor (with the idea that they needed help to pay the higher prices of fuel and meat), then this would simply make the poor continue with their current lifestyle, i.e. exactly the opposite of what I aim to achieve. The proceeds should go to better alternatives, in order to achieve the quickest change, e.g. in the light of the urgency to act on global warming. That will make such alternatives doubly more attractive by comparison, so even the rich (who could afford rising costs of fuel and meat) will take more notice and will consider making changes to their lifestyle as well. In conclusion, my proposal is neither left nor right, and it will work for both rich and poor.
As far as methane gas...?
It's a non-issue. People emit methane gas every day. Should we consider that there are more people in the world than cows and pigs, therefore WE are polluting the air?
This morning the news broadcast that we are to EXPECT higher fuel costs this winter. By who's edict is it that we should pay more for energy because it is winter?
The 'cost' of fuel goes up and down, based on the stockholders desires to make more money. It would be better to demand that they plan ahead for the high consumption months and have all energy sources READY for this period, rather than telling us there will be higher costs of production therefore costing us more.
It's not the energy sources that require higher prices, it's the poor way it is managed that costs us more.
I am researching independent power sources, such as wind and solar, and plan to be off the 'grid' in another year...then they can ALL kiss my butt!
I DO work, and I work rather hard. AND I pay taxes. Eric has the correct idea, a FLAT tax for ALL.
Sam, who are YOU to tell ME that eating meat is bad? I will eat what ever I want to. You, nor the government can not dictate what people can and can not eat. I'm an omnivour. I EAT meat, I eat A LOT of meat. I'm very healthy. In fact, I'm healthier than the vegans I know. I'm stronger, rarely (once in 5-7 years I get a cold, maybe) get sick and have more stamina, energy, strength and I look healthier.
As Billy said, Global warming is a MYTH. To believe in the Church of AlGorism of Global Gloom and Doom is believing in a fairy tale. The planet was warmer in the "Middle Ages than it is now. The SAME people that had me convinced in the 70's that we were all going to freeze to death....are the SAME people that are TRYING to convince me that now we are all going to fry to death. And Sam.....if the weather can't be bloody predicted for more than a few days in advance, how can "global warming" possibly be predicted. The gw criers are using the SAME computer models that meteorologists use.
Sam, you say you are NOT a socialist...however, your statement here:
"However, what I propose is a good tax while the proceeds should be used to encourage people to move away from eating meat. Just look at the tax as a contribution that you can make to help the environment and thus yourself!" is a VERY socialist statement.
Well, I must ask you, does eating vegan make YOU feel superior??And if if being a non-meat eater makes YOU feel superior, than are you showing a lack of intelligence?
I've not once said eating meat made one superior, you took my "top of the food chain" statement out of context. And you showed your lack of understanding natural order in the animal world. I've said no one has a right to tell me what I can and can not eat. For one to make everyone conform to their way of life is socialist and facist.
I would say that responding appropriately to the looming dangers of global warming could well be a government responsibility. If it needs to be done then enact the laws and regulations to get it done properly. Trying to do this by taxation is wrong and ineffective. Taxation is always the most discriminatory way to accomplish this and is about as inequitable as you can get! If it is not worth genuine control measures that apply to everyone, then we are being dishonest and don't need it done.
Check the facts, Eric, e.g. by reading 'Livestock's long shadow', at:
http://www.virtualcentre.org/en/library/key_pub/longshad/A0701E00.htm
and the figures given at:
http://goveg.com/environment.asp
or the article at:
http://tinyurl.com/22goky
I hope you'll succeed in getting off the grid with solar and wind power, Eric, but who knows, you may be able to stay on the grid and resell some of your surplus electricity to others. Cheers! Sam Carana
That doesn't seem to make sense.
Cindy: "..eating meat is bad?"
As the article points out, there are many problems associated with meat, one can have moral objections, meat can cause health problems (check the URLs in the article, if you don't believe me) and there are environmental problem (check the URLs in my abive comment). In conclusion, selling meat is bad enough to attract a 10% tax, which is less than taxes on gasoline, tobacco and gambling, or fines for speeding or parking in the wrong place.
By stating that global warming was a myth, you are discrediting yourself, Cincy, putting yourself in the lunatic corner and making people disregard any good comments you may have. I'm not forcing you to conform to any specific lifestyle, Cindy, but if you argue that you can inflict harm without accepting the consequences, then I have all the right to correct you.
But does it discriminate against the poor? Is it inequitable? Was there some god-given socialist law that each and every person on earth should consume a quarterpounder each day? Nonsense! Neither the poor nor the rich should be obese, have heart diseases, harm the environment, etc. Everyone, including the poor will benefit from the proposed subsidies on vegetarian food, while the 10% tax on meat does apply equally to everyone, James, and there is nothing dishonest about that!
I know it works in your mind but in reality, most of the people in the US do eat meat on a regular basis and will not tolerate such a tax. Therefore, it won't fly. If it needs to be done it needs to be done by regulation which, regardless of problems with that, are much more equitable and fair than taxation which affects only lower income people.
I don't know that we want to get everyone to be vegetarian. Man was made to eat meat as a primary source of nutrition. Fruits and vegetables add certain nutrients but meat is still the natural staple of human food. I usually eat about four ounces per day but when I was working hard physically, I ate much more. I could go vegetarian without hurting my feelings but it might very well hurt my health.
And there is a lot of food raised on marginal land here in the west which is incapable of raising any food crop, so it makes an efficiency in food production to eat some meat. At the rate we are going we will need all the food this planet can produce!
Man was made to eat meat? So, now it's your God commanding you to eat meat? It's neither natural nor humane to eat meat, James. I haven't heard any nutritionist ever say that eating meat was more healthy. It seems that you need to find out more about vegetarian and vegan diets, James, and there are plenty of places where you could learn more, including their nutritional value. Just Google and also check the links in the article for health problems that are attributed to eating meat.
First, lets leave God out of this as he is not going to appear and testify. And he does not try to dictate what I eat. Second, I don't think getting people to not eat meat is either feasible or appropriate. What you suggest, putting police in homes, is just plain silly and you know it! But until it is determined that it is sufficiently important to us as a nation to avoid eating meat and taking some government action to enforce such an extreme decision, it's not worth talking about. Tain't a gonna happen!
Yes, whether you like it or not, man was made to be a meat eater as well as vegetables and fruit. The native peoples had to get by on mostly meat in the winter times which means that it is a natural thing to eat meat. Even the cave man ate meat!
Whether it is humane to eat meat is, of course, merely a matter of personal opinion. I certainly have no problems with it. If you do, don't eat it! And, like I said, in producing food for the world, there are many acres of land in this Western part of the US (and I would assume, around the world) where one cannot raise food crops but where you can graze a few head of sheep or cattle, thereby assisting with the feeding of the world population.
I've been recommended at least four ounces of meat a day by a nutritionist. At one time, when I worked hard physically, I ate much more than that but limit it to about that today. I won't be researching anything about a vegetarian diet because I, like most other people, have no interest in that. As long as I get my small amount of meat daily, supplemented by some vegetable proteins, I'm OK and I know it. Why would I be interested in changing to something that I basically don't want anyhow?
I know, there are enthusiasts who insist that vegan is the only way to go and meatless meals are the greatest thing since sliced bread! I'm not interested. "Textured soy protein" is the recipe for some really gut wrenching meals. I've tried it several times because of cost. I don't want it at any price, sorry!
If I kill a deer in the fall, that is enough to provide me with all the meat I'll need for the next year since there are only two of us here any more. If not, I'll buy what I need, but I'll continue to eat some meat daily.
Where in this world do you live to conceive such strange ideas, Sam?
Thanks!
If it is critical that it be done, which it clearly is not, then the government should outlaw the raising and sale of meat. If it is not that important then it should be left alone. If that were necessary, it would be up to the government to arrange for and finance a transition of those employed in the meat industry to other industries and owners should be compensated for their loss since it was being done in the common interest. This would be fair and equitable if it had to be done.
You know as well as I that the taxes you propose would not affect those in higher income brackets and so would be a tax only on the workers and the poor. However, it's not going to happen either way so don't worry about it. People will not accept such a discriminatory tax and they sure wouldn't accept proscribing meat altogether. You're sharp enough to come up with about a million other things that can be done to achieve a livable planet without tilting at windmills in this manner!
You know that a major effort to curtail population growth would be more productive than anything else one can do. It is overpopulation of the planet that has brought about the various problems we face concerning the environment. Perhaps you can come up with a "tax" to accomplish this!
Compensating those in the meat industry? That doesn't make sense either. Should the tobacco industry perhaps be compensated since there is a tax on tobacco? It makes more sense for the meat industry to compensate the many victims. People will welcome the proposed combination of tax and subsidies, precisely because it is the most productive and efficient solution. We also need to tackle population growth, but that doesn't relieve us from our duty to reduce the consumption of meat.
The proposed 10% tax on meat would apply equally to everyone, James, and the proceeds would benefit sales of more healthy food. It is this combination that will make it doubly effective for people to switch to more healthy food, and this is why the rich will take more notice than if it merely was a tax.
It won't be a "tax on the workers and the poor", as you wrongly suggest. Income taxes do target those who work, but this is not a tax on income, but on meat. Workers are currently targeted too much by the tax system and too much of taxpayers money is used to subsidize livestock, while there also are many regulatory privileges that this sector enjoys, underpriced water, low rates, etc. The poor will benefit greatly from a change in policy, since the tax will go to more healthy food, while less meat also means that more land will become available to grow more healthy food.
Most of the beef and mutton raised in this part of the United States is not done on land capable of growing food crops. How would a tax help that? I personally have yet to see any problem solved by any tax except insufficient operating funds for the taxing agency. Have you seen differently?
Your concept of "regulatory privileges" for certain segments of society and "subsidized livestock" our not in keeping with the facts in this part of the country! The most fair of all taxes is still the income tax because if you don't make it you don't pay it. And while there are discrepancies and injustices in that I won't take the time to go into them. Bottom line is taxes don't negatively affect higher earing individuals like they do the working poor and middle class, to whom they are punitive.
Taxes, at best, are a necessary evil to finance our government and simply don't work for the benefit of anyone not in government! When was the last time you knew of anyone or a class of anyone's being "helped" by taxes?
I'll ask again, you impressions of the entire meat industry as well as the notion that "taxes is good" are so diametrically in conflict with reality here in the Western United States that it makes me wonder just where you live in the world to have such, to me, strange notions of many of these things?
A cow emits more than a 44-gallon drum of methane daily, or more than 200 litres a day. Sheep each emit 25 litres of methane daily. That is the reality in the Western US as well as in the rest of the world. There are some 1.5 billion cattle plus 1.7 billion sheep worldwide. That's too much methane, which is more than 20 times as potent as a greenhouse gas than CO2.
Also, sheep and goats tear out vegetation roots and all, resulting in further degradation of already arid areas, at the risk of desertification and loss of bio-diversity. Some animals, such as kangaroos, can live in the wild without emiting methane and they can thrive in arid areas without the need for farmers to supply water, feed, inocculation or to be otherwise occupied with the animals.
I do NOT propose a tax on meat to beef up government, James. Instead, the proceeds should be used to subsidize better alternatives, such as vegetarian restaurants, which would be most beneficial to the poor, helping them get more healthy and cheaper meals.
These farmers are privileged in all kinds of ways, through subsidies, cheap and guaranteed loans, grants, price guarantees, cheap water, low rates, zoning protection, etc. The US government subsidized feed grains at the amount of $2.84 billion or 35.4% of the total crop subsidies in 2004. These crop subsidies are estimated to have doubled for the year 2005 with subsidies for feed grains rising to $8.4 billion.
http://www.usda.gov/agency/obpa/Budget-Summary/2006/06.FFAS.htm
My proposal is for emissions to be taxed and for local supply of better alternatives to be subsidized from the proceeds. That has nothing to do with communism or socialism. It's about recognizing dangers and consequences, and about having the freedom to select the most effective response.
You are free (like anyone else) to submit your views here, or with the numerous scientists who work on this and to the media who report daily on this and who are eager to analyze anything that could be of importance regarding this issue. But without subtantiating your view with research findings or good arguments, your view is just a personal view that carries no more weight than the view of someone who says the direct opposite.
Note that 'no more weight' doesn't mean that your view would carry equal weight to an opposite weight. You deny victims the freedom of choice to live their lives in the way they want to. You deny freedom to the many people who are harmed by those who refuse to accept responsibility for their actions, who live in denial about the consequences, and who intend to continue inflicting harm without ever compensating the victims or taking any action to mitigate this harm. Should a serial killer be given the 'freedom' to continue killing harmless and innocent victims, just because Boxcar Billy says that serial killers should be 'free' to kill? There's no constitutional right to 'freedom to kill as you please', not for James Bond nor for Boxcar Billy! Without any supporting argument, your position is untenable, Billy, and you have no credibility. Without even making an effort to come up with arguments, you are not helping your position and you are not supporting whatever political or industrial group you may be part of.
He is in deep denial about Global Warming and thinks Bush is a great President.
Adam T (BCB) obviously has no clue, to give him any credibility at all would be ludicrous.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Image:Greenhouse_Gas_by_Sector.png
Also have a look at my article 'Communities without Roads', at:
http://www.gather.com/viewArticle.jsp?articleId=281474977128488
and my article 'Agrichar', at:
http://www.gather.com/viewArticle.jsp?articleId=281474977139103
First, let's define terms...
"farmer" - could be a guy forced into producing mega mono-crops like soy, sub-human grade corn, or toxic cow meat and receiving huge subsidies from the agribusiness big-wigs OR could be like the local Amish farmer that I get my healthy raw milk, beef, and eggs from who is being targeted by the agribusiness big-wigs who manipulate the law to put them out of business.
"cow meat" - could be the poor thing stuffed into confinement, eating it's recycled cow friends and pesticide-laden corn, receiving hormones to make it grow faster and antibiotics to keep it from getting sick from it's surroundings OR it could be a cow grazing on grass (what it was created to eat) in the sunlight so that their are high amounts of Vitamin A and D (the real stuff - not the synthetic stuff added to pasteurized milk, soymilk, etc.), who is cared for by humane farming families who are just trying to make an honest living.
The problem I have with most (if not all) of the vegetarian/vegan scientific and anecdotal evidence out there, is that it refers to agribusiness' unethical and unhealthy techniques. I'd love to see any articles about the impact of methane gas produced by ethically raised animals on small farms.
If you want to see an amazing "circle of life" at work, google Joel Salatin at Polyface Farms and read about how he grazes his cows and chickens. (Start here: http://polyfacefarms.com/principles.aspx)
Also, as I often say to my husband, there are more than two options (vegan/vegetarianism or unethical, unhealthy meat-eater.)
It is possible, and I would argue best, to be a healthy, ethical meat-eater. Don't believe me? Check this out:
http://www.westonaprice.org/tour/vegtourindex.html
Finally, I am becoming more libertarian everyday. I used to be into the idea of a "fat tax" because crap food is killing us and it serves people right to have to pay more for their bad food choices. But after reading that the the twinkie with its 40+ ingredients costs less than some pieces of produce because of government subsidies, I realized that the government doesn't have our best interests in mind.
In fact, I would end up paying the "fat tax" b/c the big guys have worked their science out to say that the saturated fat in the coconut oil that I eat is worse for me then the rancid canola oil that is cheaper for them to churn out.
Though I'm still an idealist at heart, I just can't rely on the government to do what I think is right. We need to get back to the land, support the local small guys, and fight as best as we can for our rights, as long as we're not victimizing anyone else. As Joel Salatin said when we were lobbying congress on Farm Food Voices Day, "Unlike most other groups, we haven't come here to get something from you. We don't want your money; we just want you to leave us alone."
So since I'm already promoting the things I believe in, check out www.RonPaul2008.com You won't hear anything about him in the media, because he's not in the popular crowd, but he's smart, freedom-promoting, and Constitution-upholding.
If you got this far - thanks.
Stopping what are effectively subsidies for producing meat and for using fertilizers would therefore be a step in the right direction. However, the problems are such that we need to go further than that. We should tax meat and fertilizers and spend the proceeds to subsidize supply of agrichar. Perhaps we should also tax cow milk and use the proceeds to subsidize soy milk.
We have enough of that paternalism already.
As for the environmental argument, in my opinion that dog won't hunt. There are other ways to bring down greenhouse gases without targeting just one form of nourishment for high sales taxes, only because some people think it's bad for everyone.
Meat in moderation is good for most of us. It's a rich source of iron and B vitamins and protein, and it's certainly less methane-producing in humans than a strict diet of beans, rice, corn, tofu and greens.
Soy milk tastes terrible, and so do soy cheese and soy protein that masquerades as meat.
Please, why can't we just eat in peace?
The worst thing for global warming is ethanol, as Brazil is the worlds leading deforester because of our gluttonous demand for Ethanol.
Sure, Nancy, such taxes should be adopted with the backing of the majority of the people. Once explained, I believe that only a small minority will object.
BTW, Nancy, I don't see what libertarianism has to do with this. Do libertarians perhaps argue that someone who inflicts damage should not pay for compensation or mitigation of the consequences?
Nancy: "There are other ways to bring down greenhouse gases.."
Sure, could you tell me which ones? We should indeed see the various alternatives next to each other to make well-considered decisions. If you know of any better way to deal with, say, methane emissions, please elaborate on your suggestion.
Nancy: "...targeting just one form of nourishment for high sales taxes, only because some people think it's bad for everyone."
No Nancy, meat isn't targeted in the prospect of raising lots of taxes, nor because only some thought it was bad. Meat is targeted for the reasons stated in the article, including the associated environmental harm. There is little or no doubt about the impact of methane on global warming.
Nancy: "(meat is) certainly less methane-producing in humans than a strict diet of beans, rice, corn, tofu and greens."
It is the methane emitted by cows that is the main concern, Nancy, not the methane emitted by humans.
Nancy: "Soy milk tastes terrible, and so do soy cheese and soy protein that masquerades as meat."
A matter of taste, really, but if you feel so strongly about this, then surely you wouldn't mind paying the 10% tax for mitigation and compensation of the harm you inflict on the environment, wouldn't you? You will now easily pay 10% more for food that's more your taste anyway, wouldn't you?
I appreciate all comments, but please try and post something that is relevant to the article. This article has received relatively low ratings, but I have not seen any serious arguments against what the article proposes. Is there perhaps something that needs to be explained in more detail?
my article only suggested ONE day a week without meat... and you'd think they'd been asked to give up their first born or something LOL
You're a dreamer or visionary, and capable of coming up with innovative ideas. The solutions you want make great sense in your mind. You are in no way, and average person in that respect. Taxing meat will not be accepted by an overwhelming majority of the citizens in the United States. And especially if you're going to give it back to vegetarians somehow!
I've worked with sheep and cattle for a living and I can tell you for sure that the ranchers who run their livestock on the range are very careful to keep them from damaging the areas in which they graze, because they want to be able to utilize that grazing land next year, the year after that, etc. They have more of a vested interest in preserving the quality of the range than anyone. Your claim of the animals damaging the land is a misunderstanding on your part. At least here in the western US. I'm not saying that there are no abuses in this area, but like any other, the majority of players are responsible.
How is putting a tax on meat going to reduce the amount of methane emitted by them? I fail to see how it can. The number of cattle or sheep raised will not decrease, they'll just cost more at the meat counter.
If we think that the ranchers should quite raising and selling beef and mutton, what are they going to use that land for? It won't grow crops. If you could get enough people to want to live there I guess you could put in houses, but that's not very practical.
What was that bit about herdsmen keeping goats "so they can buy women?" That, on the face of it, makes no sense, can you explain what you mean? You've obviously spent a lot of time researching how much gas is passed by various creatures in a period of time. And I admire the research you've done and information compiled!
Excessive densities of any livestock, including deer, can damage the environment. That is why ranchers guard against that!
The sole purpose of taxation is to support the agency doing the taxing. Using taxes to try to control people is not ethical in my humble opinion.
You talk about kangaroo meet which leads me to believe that you might live in Australia. If so that may be practical for you but we don't have too many of those critters here in Idaho! Raising cattle utilizes land that is unfit for other purposes in many cases. Simple, problem solved, utilize that land.
Man is by nature a predator. Predators eat meat as their primary source of food. Because of the life style which we have achieved, it is not necessary for us to eat like a cave man! Meat is a healthy, nutritious source of nutrition, B vitamins, and several other necessary nutrients. Man was eating meat before he was wearing clothes! The eating of meat is totally ethical, and should not be a part of this discussion. You have your yummy tofu or textured vegetable protein all you want but I think is should be obvious that your desires here don't represent the population! I'll pass on those delectable delicacies. I've tried them and don't have the stomach to eat them.
I agree that addressing environmental problems is an appropriate function for governments. What I said was not appropriate was the manipulation attempt by using taxes for that purpose.
Have you ever herded sheep or cattle? If not, you can go to some ranches in Montana and get a first hand experience with these animals and the way they are handled. You might find some surprises.
I think this thread is about worn out but I just got your email today and returned to the article.
Have a great day and I look forward to your future articles. Mostly we are in agreement on the problem and many of the things needed for a "cure." It's just that you, because of your excellent imagination probably, get a wild hair and start pushing the darnedest things!
You have carefully avoided addressing one of the most critical environmental problems, the overpopulation of our planet! I certainly don't propose doing away with people but we do need to get a handle on the population explosion before it destroys us! And people emit methane also.
Have a great day Sam, and I'm sure to see you on another thread!
As said, each area should decide how they are going to reduce emissions. To me, a feebate policy makes most sense, but there are different approaches. If a 10% fee on meat does indeed make little impact on emissions, then either the fees should be increased or alternative measures should be considered.
James: "Using taxes to try to control people is not ethical"
Due to inappropriate government action, we're in a situation that we need to make dramatic cuts in emissions of greenhouse gases. Using taxes to achieve this is very ethical, the more so if the proceeds of taxes are used to support better alternatives. Not only is it ethical, it's the most effective way to achieve the shift we need.
James: "Man is by nature a predator."
People use their brains to work out what makes sense. It is quite human to look well after the environment.
James: "You have carefully avoided addressing one of the most critical environmental problems, the overpopulation of our planet! I certainly don't propose doing away with people but we do need to get a handle on the population explosion before it destroys us! And people emit methane also."
Amounts of methane emitted by people is small compared to what is emitted by livestock. Let me repeat part of my earlier post on human population. The suggestion that "overpopulation" was to blame for global warming does not seem to add up with the facts, unless you mean the overpopulation of livestock which has occurred due to inadequate government policies.
Regarding numbers of people, countries that are the biggest contributors to global warming are the most developed countries, such as the US, Japan, Australia and Europe. However, population has actually been in decline for many years in most of those places. In the US, population numbers are only kept up by immigration from Mexico and the high birth rates among people from Mexico. Similarly, in Europe, population numbers are only kept up by immigration from places like Morocco and Turkey, with high birth rates among people from those countries. In Japan, population numbers has been in decline for many years, just like in Italy and many other countries that haven't had much immigration. In Australia, apart from immigration, families get a substantial financial reward for having children, which is about the only way young families can afford to a house there.
In case of China, which has a high growth of greenhouse gases, it actually has a 'one child per family' policy, the most strict and effective method of population control in the world, with high numbers of abortion. Places with the highest population growth, such as in Africa, India, Pakistan, Bangladesh actually are the lowest contributors in terms of greenhouse gases.
The suggestion that it was population growth that caused greenhouse gases is absurd. Obviously, it is the choice of technologies that causes the greenhouse gases. We have a political choice here, i.e. to encourage the switch to clean and safe methods. Switching to better alternatives can be done in little more than ten years time. Doing so will give us a better economy. We should take the lead here and give the example of how things should be done, rather than to give an example of bad politics, bad economic management and bad argumentation.
Like I said, do you think the problems would be the same if we had three billion or so less people on this planet? You can't possibly believe that would be the case, and not because of methane emitted by humans. Anyone who claims to be concerned about our planet and refuses to acknowledge the problem of overpopulation is clearly in denial as they are wont to say nowadays. If we returned to organic farms with no commercial fertilizers only, we could scarcely feed the world population today!
The truth is that everywhere you go the things in nature that help balance, such as trees and vegetation, have been drastically reduce do to the increase in the number of people on the planet. However, if you wish to continue to say that population has nothing to do with it, go ahead and say it. It won't be true but it will satisfy something in your needs.
Livestock in Idaho don't necessarily take productive farmland out of production. Some hay is raised for cattle feed which would but most cattle ranchers pasture their livestock on land that won't raise any viable commercial crop and often couldn't be farmed if it could, due to to steep terrain and sometimes inaccessible location.
However, as long as you like tilting at windmills, carry on! The people wont accept a tax on meat any more than they currently have. And those with enough money will buy it even though it costs more with your "feebate" tax. That would, I admit, provide the poor with money for groceries but if they ever wanted meat, which they would, you'd take it back away from them.
We are not talking about Africa' India, Pakistan or Bangladesh here. We're talking about the United States of America, or at least I am. And this won't fly in this nation.
The next question comes as what would you do about the malnutrition problem that no meat whatsoever would created in persons not versed in proteins sufficiently to balance their vegetable diet or lack some of the basic minerals found in animal. products. I know, you contend that they can get all they need from tofu or something but they will not because they do not know. This is a real consideration of pushing people into a vegan diet.
BTW, since a vegetarian is one who derives all his nutrients from non animal sources, what the heck is a vegan?
To debate the "feebate" for meat is a waste of both our time as neither "feebate" nor an additional tax on meat is going to happen in my lifetime and unless you're a lot younger than I, probably not in yours. But it has been an interesting discussion.
I can assure you that, in this country, I'm not the only one who believes in the need for eating meat. In fact, my dietitian recommends it in restricted quantities, and that is a diabetic diet.
Your first lines of this article make me think of the proven relationship between ice cream sales and death by drowning. I'll readily acknowledge that the red meat consumption in this country is overboard for the most part. But if you hire a haying crew and set them a fine dinner of tofu and brussels spouts, covered in cream of asparagus gravy, you will have to go out and hire a new crew! Those who do hard physical labor need more meat and carbohydrates than most of us.
I guess what I'm trying to get across is to pick your battles and put that excellent mind into efforts that might hopefully meet with success, rather than proposals that are going to be dead on arrival. Your confident you are correct about what might cure what, and perhaps you are, I lay no claim to being an expert. But when it comes to what actually be can sold and enacted, I've had a lifetime of watching that and just hate to see you waste your energy one the non-doable things. The research you've done on transportation and alternative propellants is excellent and it is something that can go somewhere, in my humble opinion. Getting people to give up all meat is not.
Thanks Sam!
If taxes can make poor people eat less meat, then that's good both for the environment and for their health. The idea of the FeeBate policy is that the proceeds of the taxes will go towards better alternatives, so that this will make such alternatives less expensive.
Ed: "An incremental approach would be needed, starting with getting rid of the subsidies for growing and importing cattle and helping community gardens instead."
We need to take the most effective action on global warming, which I believe is a FeeBate policy. At the same time, government needs to stop supporting polluting practices. Community gardens are great, so are greenhouses and small houses in communities without roads. We need to agree globally to reduce emissions, while leaving it up to each area to decide how to reach reduction targets. Market mechanisms can further sort out what works best where.
I just have one thing to say...... Tax Beans cause they make us fart!
I respect your' concerns and your' right to elucidate others, but, I disagree with you...that's all.
Converting? I'm just giving you the facts, Felix, the entire world (excluding some in the Bush administration) supports the Kyoto protocol, which includes targets for reduction of emissions. Virtually all scientists around the world agree that we should reduce emissions. Meat is one of the areas where such reductions can be achieved, with the added bonus of increasing people's health, making food more affordable, saving water, etc. The policies that I propose are simply the most effective way to achieve the necessary shift.
Felix: "You do your' thing and I'll do mine."
If some people keep spreading emissions that harm others, then they do not let other people do their thing. If you truly believed in allowing people to do their thing, then you would support my proposals, Felix, because they leave it up to each area to decide how to reach reduction targets and optimize consumer choice, while letting market mechanisms sort out what works best where. If you live in a meat area, perhaps you can jointly work something out to minimize emissions, but you may well end up paying more than the extra 10% that I propose. If you refuse, it will probably be the other meat eaters who will kick you out, not me!
The Bush administration supports the livestock sector in all kinds of ways. Grants and subsidies to livestock farming are funded from federal taxes, which pushes up the price of other food. There are also State taxes. As an example, groceries are not taxed in California. But as Wikipedia describes, ready-to-eat hot foods, whether sold by supermarkets or other vendors, are taxed in California. Restaurant bills are taxed. As an exception, hot beverages and bakery items are tax-exempt if and only if they are for take-out and are not sold with any other hot food. If consumed on the seller's premises, such items are taxed like restaurant meals.
Economies of scale can allow restaurants to efficiently serve healthy and affordable meals to many people, which can benefit especially the poor, the elderly, the sick and those who live alone and are ill-equipped to prepare a decent meal. So, why are affordable and healthy meals in restaurants taxed, while unhealthy luxury groceries are not? Also, we should look at the greenhouse gas emissions of food. Therefore, I advocate a 10% fee on the sale of meat, with the proceeds used to support rebates on better local alternatives. While my personal favorite is to support vegan-organic food served in restaurants in communities without roads, I believe that such rebate choices should be made locally.
Also excluded from California sales tax are items that generate huge amounts of greenhouse gas emissions, such as food animals (livestock), fertilizer used to grow food and energy utilities. Again, I question the logic behind that policy. I further advocate fees to be imposed on sales of fertilizers, with proceeds used to fund rebates on local sales of agrichar. Also, I advocate fees to be imposed on sales of fossil fuel, with proceeds used to fund rebates on purchase and installation of facilities that produce clean and safe energy, such as wind and solar energy.
You talk about red meat, but if you want to talk about a pollution culprit, lets discuss DISPOSABLE DIAPERS...how about a sin tax on those? If people are not willing to buy cotton diapers, wash those diapers, then let them pay a HEFTY TAX for convenience.
Hi Sherwood, thanks for commenting! Population control and disposable nappies are well worth each devoting an entire article to. Have you written or seen any good articles on those topics?
As to a tax on meat, I try to avoid terms like 'sin tax', because I want to avoid suggestions that my proposals were based on religious dogma, rather than solid scientific evidence. Also, taxes can be wasteful, feeding a monstrosity that becomes ever more dependent on tax revenue. I therefore prefer to describe my proposals as a FeeBate policy rather than as taxes, i.e. the proceeds of the fees are to fund local rebates on better alternatives.
The Greenhouse Gas FeeBate policy that I propose will impose fees on items that cause greenhouse gas emissions. Whether this was fair can be a matter of perspective, I merely claim that a FeeBate policy is the most effective way to achieve the shift we need to make, which to me seems only fair towards the victims of climate change. We can leave it up to local areas to decide what items to impose fees on and how to allocate rebates. The only agreement we need between areas is a joint commitment to reduce emissions in a safe way. As long as rebates are merely restricted to alternatives that are clean and safe, market mechanisms can further sort out what works best where.
The above diagram is from the methane makers. It shows that methane emissions are higher in the larger western cows that are reared for their meat. However, there are fewer western cattle, they only account for about 15% of all the methane produced by cows in general. Cattle that are common in non-western countries are often bred for other uses, such as work, and these non-western cows are far more numerous than the larger dairy varieties reared in North America and Europe.
However, I do foresee even more resistance against fees on all livestock products, compared to fees on meat only.
The cow dung first releases methane and then also carbon dioxide and black carbon when burned. Solar cookers are good alternatives, but biochar can also help out here.
Biochar can enrich the soil, reducing (ill-perceived) urges to further cut back forest. In the process of making biochar, syngas is produced that can cater for local energy needs.
As I wrote in Save the Rainforest, an estimated 20% of the world's total emissions comes from slash-and-burn practices. Once the forest is gone, storms, rains and floods will wash away nutrients and soil. The land can no longer support crop farming, and is then typically used for grazing cattle. In a vicous circle, the crop farmers will then move on and slash-and-burn further rainforest. Loss of rainforest goes hand in hand with loss of biodiversity and further emission of greenhouse gases.
Biochar can enrich soil and restore forests. By using the proceeds of fees on livestock products to fund local rebates on biochar, these feebates can become more acceptable, thus making the overall policy doubly effective.
The daily recommended 300-gram portion of dried dog food for a medium-sized dog contains 90 grams of meat and 156 grams of cereals, which, at its pre-dried weight, equates to a daily 450 grams of fresh meat and 260 grams of cereal, or an annual 164 kilograms of meat and 95 kilograms of cereals.
It takes 43.3 m² of land to generate 1 kilogram of chicken per year - far more for beef and lamb - and 13.4 m² to generate a kilogram of cereals. So that gives him a medium-sized dog a footprint of 0.84 hectares. A big dog such as a German shepherd will have a footprint of 1.1 hectares.
By comparison, a 4.6-litre Toyota Land Cruiser, driven 10,000 kilometres a year, will use 55.1 gigajoules of energy, both to fuel and to build it. One hectare of land can produce approximately 135 gigajoules of energy per year, so the Land Cruiser's eco-footprint is about 0.41 hectares - less than half that of a medium-sized dog.
There are over 76 million cats and 61 million dogs in the US. The study mentioned in the post points at some often-overlooked yet significant sources of carbon dioxide, such as respiration, drug production and medical care, which could make the ecological footprint of pets even larger.
Livestock currently take up 70% of all agricultural land, corresponding to 30% of the world's land surface, according to the U.N. report Livestock's Long Shadow, quoted Sam's post.
Earth could easily feed twice the current population on a vegan diet, so there is a moral issue here. Can we allow other people on Earth to starve, just because we want to eat meat? Switching to a vegan diet would also reduce much animal suffering.
Our own health is also a big issue. Switching to a vegan diet would also reduce the risk of diseases such as mad cow disease and infections with salmonella or germs such as avian flu and swine flu. The many drugs fed to animals cause bacteria to become resistant to antibiotics. Well-known health hazards of eating meat are heart problems and cancer. Search the Internet on how meat can reduce male fertility (most meat comes from female animals and contains female hormones) and on the health hazards of steroids, preservatives and the many other additives.
For those who like to read more, I've discussed food before in a number of posts, such as Overpopulation? and Save the Rainforest.