this post was submitted on 31 Dec 2023
202 points (93.9% liked)

Green - An environmentalist community

5310 readers
3 users here now

This is the place to discuss environmentalism, preservation, direct action and anything related to it!


RULES:

1- Remember the human

2- Link posts should come from a reputable source

3- All opinions are allowed but discussion must be in good faith


Related communities:


Unofficial Chat rooms:

founded 5 years ago
MODERATORS
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
[–] library_napper@monyet.cc 19 points 10 months ago* (last edited 10 months ago) (2 children)

The solution is simple: hefty meat tax.

Government has tremendous power to address collective action problems through incentives, regulations, and taxation. In the world of public health, these interventions are ranked on a scale called the Nuffield Ladder, with gentle nudges at the bottom and outright bans at the top. One of the most commonly used tools is taxation. In particular, governments can implement what are known as Pigouvian taxes on things like sugary drinks, tobacco, or polluting factories—the idea is to force producers to cover the cost of the harms their products do. They can also slap so-called “sin taxes” on products to increase direct costs for consumers. These taxes work. Numerous studies show that these are very effective in decreasing consumption, leading groups like the World Health Organization to strongly support them. The academic case for such taxes on meat is robust and convincing. But taxes in general are massively politically unpopular and lead to accusations of a nanny state interfering in consumers’ free choice, as the battles over sugar taxes around the world have shown.

[–] usernamesAreTricky@lemmy.ml 46 points 10 months ago (1 children)

It should also be noted that we currently do the exact opposite and actually heavily subsidize meat, dairy, etc around the world

[–] qyron@sopuli.xyz 5 points 10 months ago (1 children)

Thank you.

Just cutting back the subsidies would kill off a good portion of the industrial grade producers.

It would be, nonetheless, very good to actively support small scale family farms, where better practices are often used and simpler to implement and supervise.

[–] library_napper@monyet.cc 5 points 10 months ago (1 children)

Yes, we should subsidize small-scale oil producers in the Arctic. And artesian cobalt mines in the DRC. /s

No, the tax would be temporary. We need to increase the carbon tax over time as a means to phase it out. We dont need carbon energy. Likewise, we need to increase animal ag taxes until its phased out. We don't need to eat animals. What we need to do is stop this unjustifiable, harmful activities.

[–] lntl@lemmy.ml 5 points 10 months ago (1 children)
[–] Spzi@lemm.ee 2 points 10 months ago

Yes, why bother with all the specific areas. A general carbon tax covers it all.

Wether it's meat, flights, propulsion or heating, a single carbon tax sets the right incentives for all these different areas.