War on Meat Eaters: Experts Say We Should Tax Meat Eaters the Same Way We Tax Smokers

Source:Futurism
Date: 26 December 2017
Author: Lou Del Bello

Cows confined to a factory farm, a large source of emissions and land and water use. A meat tax could discourage this practice.

Meet the Meat Tax

Eating too much meat and smoking both have an impact on the public, from an environmental and health perspective. Meat production degrades the environment by releasing greenhouse gas emissions and using up a disproportionate amount of land and water per unit of protein, while smoking leads to enormous health bills that the public often has to pay for.

In a new report, investment analysts suggest passing on the costs of the meat sector’s impacts to those directly responsible, the same way we tax smokers. The simple idea of the so-called meat tax is that if your burger ends up costing as much as a plate of caviar, you may decide to explore vegetarian options.

“Meat consumption is also one sector where both the issues of environment and health overlap,” Rosie Wardle, head of investor engagements with the Farm Animal Investment Risk and Return (FAIRR) Initiative, told Futurism.

“We feel that everyone should have the right to a healthy and nutritious diet,” she said, “and ideally that should help promote a shift towards eating more plant proteins, which is healthier and better for the planet.”

The analysis explores three fields in which damaging practices have been successfully targeted with various tax schemes by governments, and asks whether meat could be the fourth. Over 180 countries already impose a tax on tobacco, 60 jurisdictions have rolled out a carbon tax scheme, and there is a tax on sugar in at least 25 countries.

A new meat tax “would generate money that could be spent in healthcare,” Waller explained. She added that while nothing has been executed yet, “we are seeing these proposals coming up more and more. It’s becoming a discussion item.”

A Growing Army of Carnivores

Nordic countries such as Denmark and Sweden were among the first to recognize the mounting threat of unchecked meat consumption driven by a booming global population. In 2016, the Danish Council on Ethics proposed a tax on red meat based on climate impacts. In Sweden, the Green party also called for a climate tax on food, asking for the introduction of a climate label to help consumers understand the footprint of their dietary choices.

 

Cows confined to a factory farm, a large source of emissions and land and water use. A meat tax could discourage this practice.
Image Credit: franzl34/Pixabay

According to Oxford University’s Our World in Data project, global meat production has grown almost five fold since 1961. Asia alone produces between 40 and 45 percent of the world’s meat. In Asia, production has increased 15 fold since 1961, and is projected to continue to grow in the future.

The threats associated with this trend are more complex than those posed by tobacco, carbon or sugar. The meat industry is not only a big source of carbon emissions; red meat over-consumption has also been linked with increased risk of diabetes, cancer and the spread of antibiotic resistance.

However, eating meat is not necessarily bad for you if done in moderation. Additionally, in places where hunger or malnutrition are still rife, introducing beef, pork or poultry to more plates would have clear health benefits.

Barring Meat, Boosting Inequality?

“Consumers respond to price changes in different ways,” Josef Schmidhuber, deputy director of the trade and markets division at the Food and Agriculture Organization (FAO), told Futurism. “Some will immediately adapt their behavior when prices change, other will stick to their old habits.”

Generally, people who are poorer adapt quicker to fluctuating prices, a trend that economists call “elastic demand.”

“So if you have a beef tax, who will you tax out of the market? Those who are poorer,” explained Schmidhuber. “And that’s a bad idea, because you penalize those who need to increase their meat consumption. We call this model ‘regressive tax.’”

On the other hand, Schmidhuber argues, a tax on meat will have little impact on those who consume too much, as this group often has extra money to spend on expensive meat. The tax would therefore fail to target the group that most contributes to the problem.

A softer approach to the problem is offered by the nudge theory, for which the economist Richard Thaler was awarded the 2017 Nobel Prize. It suggests that rather than punishing people for making the wrong choice, we could make it easier for them to do the right thing.

In the case of meat consumption, tissue culture could soon do this by providing a substitute that is close enough to the animal product that more people will switch with no regrets. Soy-based main dishes already have a place on most supermarket shelves, but visionaries are experimenting with vegetable meat that looks so much like beef that you can see it sizzle on the grill and even bleed.

However, there is no one-size-fits-all solution to the problem. While money is poured into developing more sustainable foods, the idea of a meat tax remains attractive, especially in rich countries. “Based on our findings, and looking at the pathways other products have been on to get to the tax,” Wardle said. “We think we may have something on the table within the next five to 10 years.”

My Conclusion: Reason why the elites want to eat fake meat that made by nothing but plants base ingredients. For me I have nothing against recipes that is made by 100% plant base ingredients but you can’t call meat unless it contains meat or it either vegetarian (if contains diary or eggs ingredients and no meat) or vegan (if contains 100% plant base ingredients, no animal products). In the video above now they trying make meat from bacteria do you don’t have to kill animal to get meat; but it won’t contains the same nutrient value as meat that from a animal that have been killed for. That why I prefer meat that from a animal rather that from a bacteria that is grown in a lab to make meat because of the nutrient value.

I understand there are issues within the factory farms when animals are mistreated and been pump up with antibiotic, pharmaceuticals and hormones just in order to get more from them. With animals raised on a organic farm they tend to have the best lives out there; because farmer never pumped them with antibiotic, pharmaceuticals, and hormones; farmer ensure the animals are well taken care of and getting the maximum animal welfare. They quality of meat, milk and eggs from animals raised on organic farm are better and healthier. Farming should be based on quality not quantity of the product from the animal because animal can only produce so much so farmer maybe get the animals to produce the best.

Animal rights and vegan extremist are using the environment as an excuse to push their agenda set up by the elites and to have cattle farming  and ranching done way with. And we won’t have a choice to eat a meat from a animal but instead we be eating meat that is either lab grown or Genetically Modified. The fake meat that is plant base will be GMO based.

The taxation on meat and any other products is just flat out wrong because its based on an agenda by the elites to have cattle farming and ranching done away with as well eating meat and any other animal products done away with. But the elites will still be eating meat and any other animals; well as organic farms and they will not touch GMO because they know it is harmful to human health as well as to animals. Treating those who eat meat as smokers is just flat out wrong and those who are push for it; they will not get away with. Once people recognize the evil within the animal rights and climate movement; they will reject it. It’s up to us to speak out against the animal rights movement, Climate Change scare (which they try to use the weather or the environment in order scare us into submission), the anti-human movement, the nature rights movements; how do they do it? First they either create or find a problem; then they try to get us to reaction; then they offer the solution. Problem, Reaction and Solution. That why I created Eco Liberty Blog on wordpress so can educate and inform people while the mainstream media will not cover what I’m covering. And Why we can be good human as well as good environment stewards.

Advertisements

War on meat eaters: Taxes on Meat Could Join Carbon and Sugar to Help Limit Emissions

bloomberg
12 December 2017
Emily Chasan

Move over, taxes on carbon and sugar: the global levy that may be next is meat.

Some investors are betting governments around the world will find a way to start taxing meat production as they aim to improve public health and hit emissions targets set in the Paris Climate Agreement. Socially focused investors are starting to push companies to diversify into plant protein, or even suggest livestock producers use a “shadow price” of meat — similar to an internal carbon price — to estimate future costs.

Meat could encounter the same fate as tobacco, carbon and sugar, which are currently taxed in 180, 60, and 25 jurisdictions around the world, respectively, according to a report Monday from investor group the FAIRR (Farm Animal Investment Risk & Return) Initiative. Lawmakers in Denmark, Germany, China and Sweden have discussed creating livestock-related taxes in the past two years, though the idea has encountered strong resistance.

Greenhouse gas emissions from livestock are about 14.5 percent of the world’s total, according to the Food & Agriculture Organization, which projects global meat consumption to increase 73 percent by mid-century, amid growing demand from economies like India and China. That could result in as much as $1.6 trillion in health and environmental costs for the global economy by 2050, according to FAIRR, a London-based initiative created by Coller Capital.

“Investors are starting to consider this in a similar way to how they have considered climate risk,” said Rosie Wardle, who manages investor engagements at FAIRR. “It’s kind of accepted now that we need to address livestock production and consumption to meet that 2 degree global warming limit.”

The Guardian newspaper reported on the FAIRR report earlier Monday.

Sugary Drinks

FAIRR’s sustainable protein engagement plan, currently supported by 57 investors with $2.3 trillion under management, plans to ask 16 major food multinationals this year to “future proof” their supply chains by diversifying their protein sources.

The possible impact of a meat tax could be similar to sugar taxes. While sugar taxes aimed at fighting obesity in the U.S. have faced some resistance, similar levies have been implemented in 18 countries and six U.S. cities, according to data compiled by Bloomberg Intelligence. When Mexico imposed a special tax in 2014 on sugary drinks, it lowered per capita consumption of those beverages by 6 percent in 2014, 8 percent in 2015 and 11 percent in the first half of 2016, according to Mexico’s National Institute of Public Health.

The idea of taxing meat has been hamstrung by fears of creating a political backlash by taxing farmers, FAIRR said in the report.

Plant protein, however, is already capturing a sizable amount of demand for protein, pushed partially by millennials and a trend toward incorporating more vegetarian food into Western diets. About 4 in 10 Americans and Canadians are actively trying to incorporate more plant-based food into their diets, according to a Nielsen Co. global survey.

Gates, DiCaprio

A venture capital fund owned by Tyson Foods Inc., made its second investment last week in Beyond Meat, which creates a plant-based burger that’s also backed by billionaire Bill Gates and Leonardo DiCaprio and sold in thousands of U.S. grocery stores and restaurants. Tyson took an initial 5 percent stake in the burger creator last year. Green Century Capital Management asked the poultry powerhouse in an August 2016 shareholder proposal to explore more plant-based protein opportunities.

Tyson started work on the Beyond Meat deal several months before receiving the proposal amid growing“consumer interest in all forms of protein,” said Gary Mickelson, a spokesman for the Springdale, Arkansas-based company.

“Besides all of the risks that are in the meat industry, where you are talking about huge amounts of emissions and water pollution, this is about diversifying and figuring out what areas can lead to growth,” Marissa LaFave, shareholder advocate at Boston-based Green Century, said in an interview.

The firm, which oversees about $500 million, plans to introduce more plant-based proposals at food companies this year, according to LaFave, who said companies including General Mills Inc., Campbell Soup Co., Unilever NV, Kraft Heinz Co., Kellogg Co. and Chipotle Mexican Grill Inc. are already introducing more plant-based food. Danone SA agreed to acquire WhiteWave Foods, a top maker of nut and soy milks, for a 23 percent premium last year, and said in July that the acquisition is expected to help sales.

Tyson, which described itself for years as a producer and marketer of chicken, beef and pork, is quickly recasting its image. The company now calls itself “one of the world’s largest food companies and a recognized leader in protein.”

My Conclusion: UN want to tax meat until it is too expensive eat. Forced us to go Vegan in the name of stopping climate change. I know this have nothing to do with saving the planet and being to the animals; this is about control of what can eat what we can’t eat. Remember “whoever control the food control the people. Tax on meat will put farmers and butchers out business and that what the elites had plan and they will still eating meat; after they got their way of contriving people of what they can eat.

Here a link I have posted about  https://ecolibertyblog.wordpress.com/2016/08/06/war-on-meat-eaters-un-suggest-tax-meat-until-its-too-expensive-to-eat/ so you can look it up. Reason why I added “War on Meat eaters” because we are at war with those people who want to force us to go Vegan in the name of stopping climate change. Remember people they using the climate change and CO2 as pollutant nonsense and the environment to scare us into submission. If we want enjoy the freedom to eat meat we must say “NO” to taxes on meat and fight it.

This video prove how toxic Mercury (Hg) really is

Eco Liberty
18th December 2017
Matthew Miller

I could anymore reasons not have this video post on Eco Liberty. This video that show that mercury (Hg) exposure is extremely damaging the human body especially the brain. Once the mercury enters the human it travel the fatty tissues parts of the human and the brain is made of at least 60% of fat that why mercury travel to the brain and once the mercury (Hg) had travel to the brain; nerve degeneration begins this will affect the people’s intelligence, ability to move, to speak. That why exposure of mercury must be avoided all cost.

After watch this video I could confirmed that mercury (Hg) could be the link to autism because the Brain is the main driver of our behavior and our movement because the nerve is connected to every part of our human body. When our brain is damaged either by injuries or chemicals our behaviors and movement will be affected. I’m no Neurologist but I know that Mercury is highly toxic and does damage to the neurons in our brain, include muscle weakness, poor coordination, numbness in the hands and feet, skin rashes, anxiety, memory problems, trouble speaking, trouble hearing, or trouble seeing. Another disorder known as Minamata disease which could be a possibly cause of high level of Methylmercury exposure; Methylmercury is organic from of mercury and organic form of mercury is more toxic than element form.

Sources

  • https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mercury_poisoning
  • https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NJ7M01jV058
  • Geoengineering side effects could be potentially disastrous, research shows

    Source:The Guardian
    Date: 25 February 2014
    Author: John Vidal

    Comparison of five proposed methods shows they are ineffective, alter weather systems or could not be safely stopped

    Large-scale human engineering of the Earth’s climate to prevent catastrophic global warming would not only be ineffective but would have severe unintended side effects and could not be safely stopped, a comparison of five proposed methods has concluded.

    Science academies around the world as well as some climate activists have called for more research into geoengineering techniques, such as reflecting sunlight from space, adding vast quantities of lime or iron filings to the oceans, pumping deep cold nutrient-rich waters to the surface of oceans and irrigating vast areas of the north African and Australian deserts to grow millions of trees. Each method has been shown to potentially reduce temperature on a planetary scale.

    But researchers at the Helmholtz Centre for Ocean Research Kiel, Germany, modelled these five potential methods and concluded that geoengineering could add chaos to complex and not fully understood weather systems. Even when applied on a massive scale, the most that could be expected, they say, is a temperature drop of about 8%.

    The potential side effects would be potentially disastrous, say the scientists, writing in Nature Communications. Ocean upwelling, or the bringing up of deep cold waters, would cool surface water temperatures and reduce sea ice melting, but would unbalance the global heat budget, while adding iron filings or lime would affect the oxygen levels in the oceans. Reflecting the sun’s rays into space would alter rainfall patterns and reforesting the deserts could change wind patterns and could even reduce tree growth in other regions.

    In addition, say the scientists, two of the five methods considered could not be safely stopped. “We find that, if solar radiation management or ocean upwelling is discontinued then rapid warming occurs. If the other methods are discontinued, less dramatic changes occur. Essentially all of the CO2 that was taken up remains in the ocean.”

    Even the foresting of deserts on a massive scale could prove disastrous if the irrigation needed to grow the trees were stopped, they say. “The desert regions would eventually return to desert and the carbon that was stored in the plant biomass and soil would slowly be returned to the atmosphere through decay and respiration,” says the paper.

    Each of the five climate engineering methods considered has advantages and disadvantages but individually they are all limited, say the authors. “If CO2 emissions remain high, the climate engineering methods … should not be solely counted on to prevent warming. Our results suggest that CO2 mitigation seems the most effective way to prevent climate change. Climate engineering does not appear to be an alternative option, although it could be possibly used to complement mitigation,” say the authors, who do not look at the ethical, economic, legal, political or technological feasibility of the five methods.

    “The paper sounds a timely warning about the abject stupidity of relying upon climate engineering solutions when reducing our reliance on carbon-based energy systems is the only sensible option,” said Dr Matt Watson, a lecturer in geophysical natural hazards at Bristol University.

    “The paper … highlights the urgent need to action approaches to climate change that increase mitigation and adaptation efforts, while simultaneously performing rigorous studies of proposed climate engineering methods. Although some climate engineering approaches, including air capture, may prove useful, they cannot be relied on as a ‘silver bullet’,” said Dr Tim Fox, Head of energy and environment at the Institution of Mechanical Engineers.

     

    Is Fascism Right Or Left?

    Every Republican president since the 1970s has been called a fascist. Ironic, no? After all, fascism has its roots in the left. Dinesh D’Souza, author of The Big Lie, explains.

    My Conclusion: I thank Dinesh D’Souza for sparking about what Fascism and what is their origins. Giovanni Gentile is a philosopher, educator and the creator of Fascism. Wanting to know more; you decide by watching this video and you be the judge.