Josh Sigurdson talks with author and economic analyst John Sneisen about the ridiculous proposal recently featured on state-run CBC News regarding a “sin tax” on meat products. According to a British lobby group, it would be “beneficial” to the environment and health for government to impose a tax on meat products. This group doesn’t seem to see the irony in mankind’s most notable killer and polluter stealing people’s money in order to stop them from being unhealthy and save the environment at the same time. The idea is to tax meat the way many countries tax tobacco, sugar and carbon, all terrible money grabs to begin with. It has been beamed into our brains that we must not take care of ourselves and instead depend on the goverment to take care of us for us. Major corporations benefit from such taxes and regulations as they are further monopolized by the state, driving small business competitors out of the market. The big corporations can afford to deal with the taxes on their products a few layoffs later. Small businesses cannot compete however. This is an attack on those in poverty and within the middle class. This drives up the price of already terrible foods like McDonalds and Burger King. As if the carbon tax wasn’t enough to drive up prices everywhere due to exporting and importing. It’s sad to know people actually support such a ridiculous idea. Interesting that the claim is that the government wishes to enforce rules to make people healthier all the while promoting the notion of depopulation. How’s that for irony? The arrogance of people thinking that others should eat healthier so therefor they should be extorted is another lesson in freedom. Do not bow down to the state. Do not bow down to the theft we call “taxation.” Do not allow a collective mob rule every single part of your life. The unhealthy meats that would be taxed are full of pharmaceuticals from pharmaceutical companies that the government monopolizes in the first place. How about allowing free market demand to take over, bringing in true small business competition and innovation, bringing in more production therefor more jobs with higher wages to take care of these problems without government even entering the picture? Without government standing in the way of competition and propping up massive corporations? Individual demand will ensure the best products win. High quality. Lower price. That which is more environmentally friendly as that is the tide the market is following. How many times do we have to go over this? I thought the left didn’t like major corporate monopolies. I suppose it depends. As long as the limosine liberals have their parents’ money to live off of, they don’t mind extorting everyone else who has a different opinion than them.
Roughly half of the United States’ workforce depends on small businesses thriving. But high taxes and intrusive government regulations hurt these businesses and their workers. How would tax cuts for these small businesses benefit the U.S. economy and help just about everyone? Find out in this short video.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
Climate taxes on meat and milk would lead to huge and vital cuts in carbon emissions as well as saving half a million lives a year via healthier diets, according to the first global analysis of the issue.
Source:Infowars Date: 23 November 2015 Author: Kit Daniels
Soon we’ll be accused of “ecoterrorism” if we don’t live in coffin apartments
Global warming advocates are now blaming luxury condominiums for “man-made climate change,” despite the record-breaking snow which recently pounded the northern U.S.
The “Climate Words For All” coalition released a report claiming that luxury apartment buildings are the largest “climate change offenders” in New York City.
“These are New York City’s largest buildings, over 50,000 square feet in size, which primarily consist of a mixture of luxury apartments, commercial buildings, and multi-family housing developments,” the report stated. “The significant impact of these large buildings on our carbon footprint must be addressed immediately, and at sufficient scale to meet New York City’s goal of reducing greenhouse gas emissions.”
The report was released just as New York was getting blasted by heavy snowstorms.
“Ground zero for the snow looks to be in and around the Tug Hill towns of Montague and Redfield, where 12 to 15 inches of snow could fall,” Glenn Coin of Syracuse.com reported.
“The steady stream of snow began Friday evening and carried into Saturday, bringing cold winds and slushy puddles to Michigan Avenue,” the Chicago Tribune reported. “But it also fashioned a wintry backdrop to the annual Magnificent Mile Lights Festival, transporting Chicagoans into a life-sized holiday snow globe.”
Global warming advocates, however, will attempt to blame this record snow on “man-made climate change,” even though a few years ago they were predicting that the Earth’s ice caps would have dramatically melted by now.
And it’s also likely the political elite will claim more people need to start living in “coffin apartments,” small residential spaces that are less than 400 square feet, to help fight “climate change.”
But the real reason why they want you to live in tiny apartments is because the more people they can cram into a neighborhood, the more taxes they’ll gain, plus it’ll make the public more dependent on city transportation heavily subsidized by taxpayers.