(Optional reading) . Another Carbon Tax

https://www.nytimes.com/2018/03/17/opinion/sunday/carbon-tax-on-beef.html?action=click&pgtype=Homepage&version=Moth-Visible&moduleDetail=inside-nyt-region-1&module=inside-nyt-region&region=inside-nyt-region&WT.nav=inside-nyt-region



Comments

  1. Peter Singer has talked extensively on this as well and gave a talk at W&L in 2016:

    https://livestream.com/wlu/mudd-peter-singer/videos/138044672

    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rwtf0W5f81c

    ReplyDelete
  2. If all of America were to suddenly stop eating meat altogether, it would only result in approximately a 2.6% decrease in greenhouse gas emissions. This alteration would result in grains such as corn and wheat as well as legumes working to replace the lost calories. This diet however would result in a protein deficiency as well as lack of choline, Vitamin E, Vitamin B12, Vitamin K, Aracha, and other essential nutrients, fatty acids, and amino acids. (Nutritional and greenhouse gas impacts of removing animals from US agriculture by Robin White and Mary Beth Hall 2017). While this article by Richard Conniff does point out how harmful cattle are on the environment, he does not point out that many of these emissions also are the result of the manure, which is used in farming crops. Without the use of this natural fertilizer, there would be less methane put off into the environment. Manure also contains ammonia, which under the presence of UV light in the atmosphere can produce NOx’s and O3. While eating less beef would without a doubt benefit the environment, the optimal level of beef production needs to be established for the benefit of both the environment as well as the diet of the world’s population.

    ReplyDelete

Post a Comment

Popular posts from this blog

Welcome to ECON 295