My post the other day on the suggestion by a group of science experts that we tax the heck out of meat was one of those articles I believed was on the extreme end of things and was more laughable than serious. But now I find the New York Times opinion page has weighed in and they agree.
"Chatham House, the influential British think tank, attributes 14.5 percent of global emissions to livestock — “more than the emissions produced from powering all the world’s road vehicles, trains, ships and airplanes combined.” Livestock consume the yield from a quarter of all cropland worldwide. Add in grazing, and the business of making meat occupies about three-quarters of the agricultural land on the planet."
The editorial goes on to say that a carbon tax on just beef would be a good way to start since it would turn households toward those meats with a smaller carbon footprint, like chicken or pork. Like chicken isn't in everything already. In any event most greenhouse gas experts do not believe this will happen, people all over the world eat meat. So, the writer ends with this sad trombone:
"Still, the idea of a carbon tax on beef makes me think. I crave the aroma of beef, from a burger, or a barbecue brisket cooked low and slow. It’s just harder to enjoy it now when I can also catch the faint whiff of methane lingering 20 years into our increasingly uncertain future."