Climate friendly meat is a black bean burger
A recent study published in Global Food Security, for instance, shows that humble legumes, with the right government push, could provide a far more sustainable and diverse source of protein than meat
this post was submitted on 31 Dec 2023
202 points (93.9% liked)
Green - An environmentalist community
5310 readers
1 users here now
This is the place to discuss environmentalism, preservation, direct action and anything related to it!
RULES:
1- Remember the human
2- Link posts should come from a reputable source
3- All opinions are allowed but discussion must be in good faith
Related communities:
- /c/collapse
- /c/antreefa
- /c/gardening
- /c/[email protected]
- /c/biology
- /c/criseciv
- /c/eco
- /c/[email protected]
- SLRPNK
Unofficial Chat rooms:
founded 5 years ago
MODERATORS
i'm still bummed the humble black bean burger (usually no extra charge) has been replaced by beyond/impossible (usually a $1-3 upcharge) at so many restaurants.
The thing that I hate the most about it is it's the same fucking price at the grocery store, but somehow that equates to a 40% more expensive burger. Meat is ungodly expensive nowadays such that my partner and I opt for meat substitutes because it's often cheaper and we prefer them anyway.
I understand economies of scale, and that they're buying less of it so they're gonna be paying a little more, but $3 per 8oz burger is absurd. Burger places have lost their goddamn minds when there's often way better ramen noodles next door for half the price.
I was going to say Soylent Green.
The solution is simple: hefty meat tax.
Government has tremendous power to address collective action problems through incentives, regulations, and taxation. In the world of public health, these interventions are ranked on a scale called the Nuffield Ladder, with gentle nudges at the bottom and outright bans at the top. One of the most commonly used tools is taxation. In particular, governments can implement what are known as Pigouvian taxes on things like sugary drinks, tobacco, or polluting factories—the idea is to force producers to cover the cost of the harms their products do. They can also slap so-called “sin taxes” on products to increase direct costs for consumers. These taxes work. Numerous studies show that these are very effective in decreasing consumption, leading groups like the World Health Organization to strongly support them. The academic case for such taxes on meat is robust and convincing. But taxes in general are massively politically unpopular and lead to accusations of a nanny state interfering in consumers’ free choice, as the battles over sugar taxes around the world have shown.
It should also be noted that we currently do the exact opposite and actually heavily subsidize meat, dairy, etc around the world
Thank you.
Just cutting back the subsidies would kill off a good portion of the industrial grade producers.
It would be, nonetheless, very good to actively support small scale family farms, where better practices are often used and simpler to implement and supervise.
Yes, we should subsidize small-scale oil producers in the Arctic. And artesian cobalt mines in the DRC. /s
No, the tax would be temporary. We need to increase the carbon tax over time as a means to phase it out. We dont need carbon energy. Likewise, we need to increase animal ag taxes until its phased out. We don't need to eat animals. What we need to do is stop this unjustifiable, harmful activities.
load more comments
(8 replies)
carbon tax
Yes, why bother with all the specific areas. A general carbon tax covers it all.
Wether it's meat, flights, propulsion or heating, a single carbon tax sets the right incentives for all these different areas.
I got your climate friendly meat right here 
The thing I can never get behind is that this is always used as an argument for new technologies instead of returning to lower tech, pre-industrial solutions that are already well established and known to be safer.
The problem with this is lifestyle inflation.
Pre-industrial technologies will only get us pre-industrial amounts of meat, which has to be split between the current population.
There's a lot of people who probably won't be very happy with only being able to afford meat once or twice a week. That seems like a surefire way to trigger a backlash.
this is always used as an argument for new technologies instead of returning to lower tech, pre-industrial solutions that are already well established and known to be safer
Maybe because it's about economical efficiency. The old ways were abandoned in favor of new methods, because the new approach was cheaper / yielded higher profits.
Yes, we could produce meat like we did in pre-industrial times, but that would mean higher prices or lower volume. Either way, it would mean less people could afford to eat meat. Like in pre-industrial times.
Maybe because it’s about economical efficiency
Exactly. It's not about "saving the planet" at all. It is, once again, about making more money.
Oh, that's not what I meant to describe. There are differences in ecological impact of various foods and production methods, obviously. Choosing the smaller options helps to do less harm, to "save the planet".
I meant to point out that we moved from pre-industrial methods to modern methods because they make more sense in economic terms, in capitalism. And that just going back might lead to unwanted consequences like lots of people with much less access to meat.
The problem with meat is not that we eat it, but that we eat too much of it. Most people eat a week's worth of meat in a single day, and that results in the over production of meat, which is helping to destroy the environment.
The problem with meat is not that we eat it, but that we eat too much of it.
This isn't how it works. Consuming meat and cheese and butter and other animal products has been made into a conspicuous consumption deal for a long time, it's a status symbol, obviously important to pastoralist cultures and their industrial descendants (like The West).
You can't do "low meat" without first attacking the status power of meat.
People would go crazy and riot over reducing it, as it would most likely manifest as:
- Rationing of meat (I've lived in this, in Romania, a long time ago) - possible, but hard, not really something that works in capitalist market economics.
- Raising the prices (which is something that the animal farmers would love) - which would cause all sorts of ..."so meat is only for rich people? FUCK THAT!" reactions.
If you don't do those, it's just going to be imported.
If you ban imports, you're going to get a meat mafia. Meat bootleggers. The "leather underground" mafia and terrorist organization.
You may actually get to see this, since the prices are destined to shoot up eventually, since it's so unsustainable.
Solution to #2: Implement as a pigovian tax. Return the tax revenue to the population per capita.
The rich: dodges taxes like the Olympic gold medalists of dodging taxes
Yes, the most powerful will always have the most power. It still makes sense to set up some rules.
Pigovian taxes can still be beneficial for society, even if the super rich evade the system. They create incentives for everyone else to move in the desired direction. This includes consumers, producers, investors, researchers. For all those people in their different positions, it will be financial advantageous to consider other options.
But my main point was that you can raise prices without hurting the poor. By returning the tax revenue to the poor.
load more comments
(1 replies)
load more comments
(2 replies)
The truly climate friendly meat has been right in front of us since the dawn of time, but it is illegal in most places and taboo in most cultures except in emergencies.
Human meat is unsustainable even if it could be allowed like some muscle donation. Adding in capitalist incentives would make "human trafficking" reach new levels horror.
Human meat is unsustainable
That's the neat part that makes it so environmentally friendly.
Whereever there is need for something, some assholes come and create a new sector out of it to milk it as much as possible before moving onto the next thing. Pretty much the same story with responsibly sourced or net carbon zero emissions certificates etc. Some people are making shit loads of money out of it, while probably serving nothing (or barely anything) for the original purpose but just making it seem like they do. And worse they are probably delaying real solutions by at least a couple decades.
Why is this articles content all blurry?
Strange, doesn't show up like for me. I don't think there's a paywall on this article, so I'm not sure why it'd be showing up like that. Maybe a browser issue? I'm using Firefox, what browser are you using?
Privacy Browser
Edit: not sure why I'm downvoted. The browser is literally called "Privacy Browser" on F-Droid.
Does it disable JS or limit it or something along those lines? Maybe could be the reason?
view more: next ›