As I keep nagging Greenies, that is the correct method: tax the problem, not the method. We didn't outlaw fireplaces in the 1950s to get clean air, we put a price on emitting smoke. The Scots, though, have decided to go against that and are actively outlawing fireplaces.
Unless there are farmers feeding their cattle on coal or something, every carbon molecule 'emitted' by livestock was originally captured from the atmosphere by the plants they consume. It's called the carbon cycle, and we learnt about it at school (those of us who weren't on a Klimastreik that day, anyway).
If all farm animals magically vanished overnight, the vegetation they eat would continue to grow and eventually die, to rot and emit CH4/CO2 produced by fungi and microbes rather similar to those that exits in a cow's various stomachs (which is what allows them to digest cellulose in the first place). You might want to argue that CH4 is a more powerful greenhouse gas than CO2, but it's persistence in the atmosphere is much shorter (months rather than centuries), so any extra CH4 vs CO2 is very much a second order effect.
Thus Moonbat and the other ecoloons who measure all the carbon emissions of livestock and try to conflate that with carbon emissions from burning fossil fuels are barking (possible up the wrong tree, but definitely barking).
Although like some of your other readers I'm also not as sold on climate change, I do appreciate a properly applied carbon tax as a way to "deal" with it. The trouble with the meat tax is that it's being seized upon by a bunch of people who are convinced meat is bad to strike a blow, as well as those who think they can make a buck out of meat substitutes.
As I keep nagging Greenies, that is the correct method: tax the problem, not the method. We didn't outlaw fireplaces in the 1950s to get clean air, we put a price on emitting smoke. The Scots, though, have decided to go against that and are actively outlawing fireplaces.
Unless there are farmers feeding their cattle on coal or something, every carbon molecule 'emitted' by livestock was originally captured from the atmosphere by the plants they consume. It's called the carbon cycle, and we learnt about it at school (those of us who weren't on a Klimastreik that day, anyway).
If all farm animals magically vanished overnight, the vegetation they eat would continue to grow and eventually die, to rot and emit CH4/CO2 produced by fungi and microbes rather similar to those that exits in a cow's various stomachs (which is what allows them to digest cellulose in the first place). You might want to argue that CH4 is a more powerful greenhouse gas than CO2, but it's persistence in the atmosphere is much shorter (months rather than centuries), so any extra CH4 vs CO2 is very much a second order effect.
Thus Moonbat and the other ecoloons who measure all the carbon emissions of livestock and try to conflate that with carbon emissions from burning fossil fuels are barking (possible up the wrong tree, but definitely barking).
“It’s a *revenue neutral* carbon tax which is the solution.” Ho ho ho!
a large amount of vegetables in the diet drastically increases personal methane emissions and long term dodging meat harms the ability to think
Who could argue against a vegan tax?
Although like some of your other readers I'm also not as sold on climate change, I do appreciate a properly applied carbon tax as a way to "deal" with it. The trouble with the meat tax is that it's being seized upon by a bunch of people who are convinced meat is bad to strike a blow, as well as those who think they can make a buck out of meat substitutes.