Drivers will be forced off the roads in Ireland and the population packed into “higher density” cities under a long-awaited climate plan which will ‘revolutionise’ people’s lifestyle and behaviours, according to local media.
“Nudge” policies such as huge tax hikes, as well as bans and red tape outlined in the plan, will pave the way to a “vibrant” Ireland of zero carbon emissions by 2050 according to the government, which last year committed to boost the country’s 4.7 million-strong population by a further million with mass migration.
In order to avert a “climate apocalypse”, the government plans to force people “out of private cars because they are the biggest offenders for emissions”, according to transport minister Shane Ross whose proposals — which include banning fossil fuel vehicles from towns and cities nationwide — are posed to cripple ordinary motorists, local media reports.
Launching the plan in Dublin, leader Leo Varadkar outlined his vision for an Ireland of ‘higher density’ cities consisting of populations whose lifestyles and behaviours have been totally transformed by ‘carrot and stick’ policies outlined in the climate plan.
“Our approach will be to nudge people and businesses to change behaviour and adapt new technologies through incentives, disincentives, regulations and information,” the globalist prime minister said.
“We are going to change how electricity is produced and consumed, how our homes and workplaces are heated; the way we travel; the types of vehicles we purchase; and how food is produced.
“It’s about vibrant, populated city centres, liveable, with excellent amenities and transport as we embrace higher densities.”
The document, which was unveiled on Tuesday, features more than 180 measures to decarbonise the Irish economy including making private car ownership prohibitively expensive — with petrol and diesel car sales banned by 2030, a date by which it says general carbon tax will be increased from €20 a tonne to “at least” €80.
In addition, the plans demand that coal and peat-fired power stations are replaced with wind farms and other “green” energy sources in order to meet the requirement that 70 per cent of electricity will be generated from renewables by 2030.
But plans to dramatically slash carbon emissions by ditching tried and tested energy sources such as coal and nuclear in favour of renewables will necessarily result in a collapse in living standards according to scientists including Cambridge engineering professor Michael Kelly, who has previously explained that such proposals “represent total madness”.
“In energy terms the current generation of renewable energy technologies alone will not enable a civilised modern society to continue,” he asserted in a peer-reviewed paper published in 2016, pointing out that renewables such as solar, wind, and hydro power supply just seven per cent of electricity needs globally while “the rate at which fossil fuels are growing is seven times that at which the low carbon energies are growing”.
The Hughes Medal-decorated physicist cautioned: “The call to decarbonise the global economy by 80% by 2050 can now only be described as glib in my opinion, as the underlying analysis shows it is only possible if we wish to see large parts of the population die from starvation, destitution or violence in the absence of enough low-carbon energy to sustain society.”
California is known for a lot of things: Ronald Reagan, Hollywood, beaches, hippies, student protests — and some of the most relentlessly progressive politicians in the entire country.
Simply put, the government of California is out of control. In total, the state added 1,016new laws to the books in 2019, including a silly “straw ban,” intrusive requirements for children’s menus and yet another minimum wage increase. At virtually every level of Californians’ lives, state policymakers are ready to step in and interfere. From the cradle to the grave.
Now it seems the new governor, Gavin Newsom, is anxious to make his own contribution to the ever-expanding role of government in our lives by taxing some of our most basic necessities in an unprecedented power grab.
In his ineffable wisdom, the newly elected governor has proposed a statewide tax on, of all things, California’s drinking water. Newsom plans to dedicate the new tax revenues to programs to help communities clean up contaminated water sites. Improving the quality of drinking water may be a worthy goal, but the water tax proposal is a case study in the failures of progressive policymaking.
First, critics note that the new tax would be difficult and costly to administer. Jon Coupal of the Howard Jarvis Taxpayer Association said the proposed water tax is emblematic “of California’s knee-jerk reaction to default to a new tax whenever there’s a new problem.”
“It isn’t sound policy to tax a resource that is essential to life,” the Association of California Water Agencies noted, a coalition of public water agencies throughout the state. “The combined local administrative costs would exceed the combined statewide water tax revenue collected with local water bills.”
But more than concerns over the cost of the new tax or its administrability, is the simple fact that it runs counter to the will of the California electorate.
In the last election, voters defeated a statewide measure proposed to allocate $500 million in bond funding to ensure compliance with drinking water standards. According to a statewide poll conducted by Tulchin Research in 2018, 73 percent of likely California voters oppose the proposed tax on drinking water.
“Opposition to this proposed statewide tax on drinking water holds true among every major demographic group in the state,” Tulchin notes. “In a rare display of bipartisanship, Democrats and Republicans oppose the tax by nearly identical margins as do voters in both Northern and Southern California and voters in all ethnic groups.”
One key to understanding the unpopularity of the water tax is that California is already among the most heavily taxed states in the country. The Foundation for Economic Freedom reports that California already has one of the largest tax burdens in the country, pointing out that “In 2017, the state collected $82 billion in tax revenue — nearly $4 billion more than expected.”
Yet despite the state’s enviable financial status, Newsom’s plan to improve the quality of drinking water in the state appears to be taken from the usual liberal playbook: More taxes and more government as the solution for every societal problem.
But this suggests a lack of creative thinking on the part of the governor. There are, in fact, other solutions to the problem of contaminated water, experts say. “We think the problem can be solved without a tax,” says Cindy Tuck, deputy executive director of the ACWA.
One promising non-tax alternative to improving California’s drinking water is the Safe Drinking Water Trust funded by the state’s general fund during years with a budget surplus, as proposed by ACWA and California Municipal Utilities Association. According to Water Tax Facts, “The net income from the trust would create a durable funding source that will help community water systems in disadvantaged communities provide access to safe drinking water.”
If the governor is sincere in his desire to address water quality, he should first explore how alternative mechanisms like the Water Trust could be strengthened before he demands more money from already hard-pressed California taxpayers.
For now, the proposed water tax is further evidence that the state’s liberal politicians are all wet. And if they get their way, the rest of us will simply be hung out to dry.
A GREEN MP has called on Parliament to impose a tax on meat to cut greenhouse gas emissions and reduce climate change.
MP Caroline Lucas said taxing meat would lead to a reduction in greenhouse gasses (Image: GETTY)
Caroline Lucas told delegates at the Oxford Farming Conference an overhaul of Britain’s agri-industrial food system is needed because it is in “crisis” and is favouring consolidation at the expense of human health, ecology and the livelihoods of farmers. In a speech entitled ‘A radical new vision for British agriculture’ delivered on Friday, Ms Lucas set out her vision for farming which included greater attention to animal welfare, fewer pesticides, a reduction in food waste, and adopting a diet with less meat and dairy products. Half of all farmed animal emissions come from beef and lamb, according to research by scientists Joseph Poore and Thomas Nemecek.
Critics have hit back at Ms Lucas saying taxing meat will hit poor communities (Image: Getty)
Ms Lucas referred to MP Claire Perry, who said if the Cabinet ate less beef to set an example it would lead to the introduction of a “nanny state”.
Ms Lucas said: “At the risk of incurring the wrath of the energy secretary in particular who said recently that encouraging people to eat less meat would be ‘the worst sort of nanny state ever’, I’d add that we need serious consideration of measures like a meat tax, particularly for beef.
“I accept that British sheep farming is one of the least intensive forms of livestock farming so perhaps a banded system according to production would help, offset for more sustainable meat producers through increased revenue from targeted agri-environment schemes.”
But NFU vice president Stuart Roberts hit back at her demands, tweeting: “We all share the ambition to address climate change but taxing isn’t the way.
Green MP Caroline Lucas said a complete overhaul of the agri-industrial system is needed (Image: Getty stock image)
“There’s great potential for market based drivers and future agriculture policy to underpin our positive direction of travel without looking at regressive tax solution. Let’s see market-based solutions.”
Earlier in the week, Minettte Batters, president of the National Farmers’ Union called for zero farming emissions by 2040.
Ms Lucas said she felt “encouraged” to hear her comments and hopes she can count on the NFU to support her amendment to the Agriculture Bill to achieve it.
During a speech at the conference this week, Ms Batters said: “Our aim must be ambitious: to get our industry to net zero across all greenhouse gas inventories by 2040 or before.”
Livestock account for five per cent’s of the UK’s greenhouse gas emissions (Image: Getty)
But critics argue that poor people will be hit hardest by a meat tax and say it will not bring greenhouse gas emissions down to safe levels.
Nick Allen, head of the British Meat Processors Association, said: “We have one of the best grass growing climate in the world. So we have the ability to turn good grass into good meat better than anyone else.
“I don’t believe it would achieve the desired result.”
Ms Lucas tweeted: “We need huge reduction in meat-eating to avoid climate breakdown. Better manure management and selection of feed can reduce farming emissions – but need to consider potential of #Meattax too.”
One person tweeted back: “So a regressive #Meattax is the answer? Let’s make meat a luxury item for the well-off, no @CarolineLucas. Don’t blame ordinary people for climate change, lecturing them about what they eat.”
Livestock accounts for five per cent of Britain’s greenhouse gas emissions.
Eco Liberty Conclusion:
Yes there is a war on meat eater in the UK in the name of stop climate change bringing forth Agenda 21, Making people eat one of the most unhealthiest diet in the world which is call the Vegan diet. And I do the fact to backup why the Vegan diet is one of the most unhealthiest diet in the world. On sv3rige Youtube channel he interview ex-vegan to allow them to share their story and why going on the vegan diet long-term is a very unhealthy idea. Here one the most recent ex-vegan video on sv3rige channel
I have watch a lot of sv3rige ex-vegan interviews. Why meat is important food the human body many have been brainwash that the Vegan most healthiest and the peaceful diet on earth and in fact it’s the polar opposite. Why the media and government pushing one of most unhealthiest diet on earth and saying that it healthy in fact it’s not. That type movement to push Veganism and bring forth meat prohibition is going to kill a lot people. That we need to expose that animal rights movement, climate movement and any other movements that push veganism, meat and dairy prohibition, Carbon Dioxide Reduction (which is plant food), Geo engineering the climate to stop climate change; and human extinction. They’re there to destroy the environment and life on Earth. Those movement are fund by the elites to brainwash people to push their agenda.
For Eco Liberty we’re there to inform people so we can help human to survive and process to the next level.
Geoengineering tests are being public announced by Harvard University, the Solar Geoengineering Research Program is now public. So much for the conspiracy, Firsts spray trials will begin in early 2019 with calcium carbonate injected into cloud layers using a tethered balloon to begin with, moving to a fleet of aircraft at full roll out. The plan is to mimic a Pinatubo eruption level event to cool the planet by 0.6C within 15 months, termed rapid cooling. This will occur the same time the planet begins to cool as the Grand Solar Minimum intensifies, so it appears Harvard is trying to give itself success in the aerosol spraying program to cool the planet, but in actuality its the Sun in its 400 year cycle. The program will be indefinite due to “termination shock” and full reversal to global warming conditions if they stop. Global taxes to follow, new Geoengineering Taxes, no longer CO2 tax, they switched the narrative.
A new U.N. report suggests a $240 per gallon gas tax equivalent is needed to fight global warming.
The U.N. says a carbon tax would need to be as high as $27,000 per ton in the year 2100.
If you think that’s unlikely to ever happen, you’re probably right.
A United Nations special climate report suggests a tax on carbon dioxide emissions would need to be as high as $27,000 per ton at the end of the century to effectively limit global warming.
For Americans, that’s the same as a $240 per gallon tax on gasoline in the year 2100, should such a recommendation be adopted. In 2030, the report says a carbon tax would need to be as high as $5,500 — that’s equivalent to a $49 per gallon gas tax.
If you think that’s an unlikely scenario, you’re probably not wrong. However, it’s what the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change’s report, released Sunday night, sees as a policy option for reducing emissions enough to keep projected warming below 1.5 degrees Celsius (2.7 degrees Fahrenheit).
The IPCC’s report is meant to galvanize political support for doubling down on the Paris climate accord ahead of a U.N. climate summit scheduled for December. The report calls for societal changes that are “unprecedented in terms of scale” in order to limit future global warming to below 1.5 degrees Celsius (2.7 degrees Fahrenheit), the stretch goal of the Paris accord.
In order to effectively keep future warming below 1.5 degrees Celsius (2.7 degrees Fahrenheit) , the IPCC says carbon taxes would need to range from $135 to $5,500 per ton in 2030, $245 to $13,000 per ton in 2050, $420 to $17,000 per ton in 2070 and $690 to $27,000 per ton in 2100.
To meet the goals of the Paris accord, which seeks to limit future warming to below 2 degrees Celsius, the IPCC says carbon taxes would have range between $10 and $200 in 2030 and $160 and $2,125 in 2100.
That’s equivalent to a gas tax as high as $1.70 per gallon in 2030 to nearly $19 per gallon at the end of the century. That’s less onerous than limiting warming to 1.5 degrees Celsius (2.7 degrees Fahrenheit), but still no walk in the park.
California and many European countries have policies to price carbon dioxide emissions and mandate green energy, including cap-and-trade systems and carbon taxes. But carbon prices under those systems are nowhere near where the IPCC says they need to be.
The IPCC said the “price of carbon would need to increase significantly when a higher level of stringency is pursued.” However, the group’s report tacitly acknowledges the unlikelihood that governments will enact astronomical taxes on energy.
“While the price of carbon is central to prompt mitigation pathways compatible with 1.5 [degree Celsius](2.7 degrees Fahrenheit)-consistent pathways, a complementary mix of stringent policies is required,” reads the IPCC’s report.
In the U.S., Republican lawmakers overwhelmingly passed a resolution opposed to carbon taxes in July. Democrats called for a price on carbon dioxide in their 2016 party platform, but they haven’t made much effort on that front since the failure of cap-and-trade legislation in 2010.
Republican Rep. Carlos Curbelo of Florida introduced carbon tax legislation shortly after all but five of his GOP colleagues in the House voted to oppose such a bill. Curbelo’s bill would tax carbon dioxide at $23 a ton — nowhere near what the IPCC calls for.
However, the IPCC suggested a lower carbon tax could be used in conjunction with command and control policies, like regulations and bans on coal plants, could achieve “generate a 1.5˚C (2.7°F) pathway for the U.S. electric sector.”
But that point only serves to undermine Curbelo’s bill, which would put a moratorium on some environmental regulations and possibly eliminate some if emissions goals are reached.
The IPCC noted the “literature indicates that the pricing of emissions is relevant but needs to be complemented with other policies to drive the required changes in line with 1.5°C (2.7°F)-consistent cost-effective pathways.”
My Conclusion: Thing is that why UN, IPCC and the other global elites want Global warming or Climate Change to be a problem. Because they want more money and power; they know: that Global Warming or Climate Change is never an issues but it a natural occurring event that occurs everyday, that carbon dioxide is plant food, That solar minimum is on it’s way and earth will cooler within decades to come.
With the IPCC thinking the earth will be 1.5°C (2.7°F) warmer by either 2040 or 2050 is not going to case because we would be in a new solar minimum at that time. Once IPCC is caught for misleading and keeping people in the dark and soon one day IPCC will have to explain themselves why they’re deliberately deceiving people to either make money and gain power. The reason why they keep scare people will the global warming the climate change nonsense because they think they can get away with it and achieved their agenda.
We need to call those people who pushing climate change by scaring us into accepting their agenda; out or we may face another dark age. The Climate Change scare has nothing to do about saving the planet nor protecting the environment.
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.