It’s odd that commenters are instantly against a tax for combating climate change, when it targets something they like.
Red meat is a particularly big polluter. It is quite extreme just how much ~~co2~~ pollution cows create. Climate change is real. Taxing things that are bad *does* have an impact. People will switch to cheaper meats for day to day meals. They will eat red meat less often. That’s fantastic for the environment.
I for one am 100% in favour of this tax. I already chose to eat other meats more often over beef.
Edit; as a number of people have pointed out it’s not strictly co2. It’s other greenhouse emissions. Like methane. So I’ve swapped out co2.
Thanks to whoever gave the gold!
This seems entirely speculative and misleading. There happens to have been *one proposal* in Germany and I think that’s it.
The linked Fitch report “Sustainability – Drivers And Implications For Agribusiness” in the BI article is not directly about this, but about agribusiness in general and one of the key points is:
> We identify meat and palm oil consumption as the two industries most susceptible to undergo structural changes over the coming years.
It really doesn’t talk about meat as much as palm oil. One place mentioning governments taxing meat is:
> Governments could leverage on this demand for more sustainability and tax the consumer instead of implementing stricter environmental production regulations. Some may consider implementing a tax on meat, following on the model of the ongoing rise in ‘sugar taxes’ (see ‘Positive Sugar Consumption Outlook But ‘War On Sugar’ Gains Momentum’, August 21, 2018). However, we note that such a measure could be unpopular at a time of [MISSING!]
Yes the end of that paragraph really is missing. No idea what’s going on there, but it’s all just speculation. The BI article then pulls in a report about a German proposal to tax meat.
It later points out that meat is a commodity probably isn’t a growth market, except perhaps poultry. Also beef consumption is dropping in many countries and artificial meat may be a threat.
BI article also points out that big consumers like China (added by me) , USA and Brazil wouldn’t do this. I couldn’t find the “highly unlikely” quote in the Fitch report at all:
> However, Fitch tipped cold water on that idea. It stated that it was “highly unlikely” that meat-lovers in the US and Brazil would use taxes to banish meat from menus.
This is such a bullshit headline. A firm of analysts comes up with an idea if something that could possible happen, publishes it along with a bunch of public policy data on taxation driving consumer spending habits (which is known behaviour, and has been for 30+ years), and suddenly that transforms into “Governments are considering”. Fucking free advertising for Fitch is pretty much all this is.
Too many people in this topic who probably claim they want to fight climate change but don’t want to make any cut backs, sacrifices, make any changes or pay any costs.
Do you see the problem?
All they would need to do in the US is stop the vast agricultural subsidies that make beef artificially cheap.