Saying that “climate change is an ethical problem”...

This is basically Sweden...Sweden and Germany combine

I'm not 100% sure how the two are correlated.

Don't get me wrong, I think climate change is very important, but this helps....how? If it has to do with all the cows creating co2, unless America stops eating beef that won't go away

Good idea. There's no need to eat red meat every day of the week,

sounds good to me as long as they don't apply it selectively, plenty of plants are just as high maintenance on soil and water as cows.

Yes, because if the government can make money off it, the crisis will surely be averted.

If they could first give us a shred of evidence that PROVES without a doubt that 1. The earth is actually warming (there is evidence to the contrary)
2. That it is being caused by CO2 and methane emissions.

The average global temperature did not rise any unprecedented amount from 1997-2014 (17 years)- longer than the period of warming that started in the late 70s and kicked off this debacle.

Also, there is no correlation between global atmospheric CO2 concentrations and global temperature, since 1/4 of ALL CO2 ever produced by man was released during those 17 years. There is, however, a much stronger correlation between the number of sun spots and global temperature, as well as the cycle of ocean currents.

The problem with environmental politics is that everyone suddenly gets so defeatist. Oh there's no point in Europe changing if America doesn't. Oh there's no point in America changing if China doesn't, and so on. Everybody needs to change though, and if nobody starts, no one else will follow.

>global warming isn't real
>oh wait it's real but it's actually just a mean surface temperature rise, some spots are sometimes cooler than last year so it's actually a fake term!
>oh wait I sound like an idiot, well it's ok it definitely wasn't caused by humans
>oh well those people who were denying it were not me, I'm just saying it will cause more damage to the economy to try and stop it than to live with it
>oh well those people who were trying to deny that we can do anything were right, it's too late let's just burn more gas
What stage are we at again with this? Also I'm ok with a tax on red meat.

Makes sense. Taxes are one of the shittiest, most regressive ways of influencing behaviour, but it's hard to deny their effectiveness when it comes to something that's not a necessity or an addiction.

They may be a small country, but implementing policy is exactly how you influence the global Overton window.

>regressive
A tax is regressive or progressive depending on how it influences the poor. A standard generic tax on all food, housing, or health care would be completely regressive because poor people spend more on food as a proportion of their income than rich people (inb4 strapping young buck buying t-bone steaks with food stamps). A tax on private jets would be completely progressive because it would never affect a poor person's cost of living.

A tax on specific foods like beer, wine, or red meat would be more progressive than regressive because those things are not necessary for survival.

Beans are better for you anyway. With rice, they provide a complete amino acid profile, inb4 someone accuses me of veganism because I'm not a nutritionally clueless retard who eats hamburgers 3x a day.

ITT: we change the definition of words to support our arguments.

Eating red meat promotes the production of toxic testosterone, can't have that it's 2016

The definition of regressive was determined before you were born, champ. Stay in school in the next life so you can be subject to some of those highfalutin' progressive taxes.

Sure, I should say food taxes specifically tend to be regressive. And lord knows billy and his twelve kids aren't going to give up the McD any time soon even if it costs an extra ten pence. I think I'd still support the idea in general though.

cows do fart a shitton you know ? , they're probably top producer of methane gas

retard

global warming is a misnomer

it's really climate change

some places will get rather hot
some places will get rather cold
the oceans will warm up and kill everything

I seriously hope you're not trying to say that polluting the planet is not a bad thing.

Eating red meat isn't the problem, it's bad agricultural practices. This solution is sustainable, reduces carbon in the atmosphere & has no requirements to eat less meat. Oh and it works. youtube.com/watch?v=vpTHi7O66pI

My thought is that bacon isn't a red meat, so it shouldn't affect imported danish bacon.

Otherwise, the nether regions can go fuck itself.

I'm afraid pork is classed as red meat.

no

Hey the Danish can do whatever the fuck they want, they obviously don't give a fuck about paying a shitload of taxes so why should I care if they extort their citizens a little bit more?

That being said, personally I would buy black market beef. Fuck socialism.

> pork is still classified as a red meat because it is a livestock product, like beef, lamb and veal, and all livestock are classed as red meat.

nordic countries are setting a good example as usual

If you want doubtless proof you're not demanding a shred of evidence, you're demanding the perfection of a whole branch of science or more depending on your definition of "without a doubt".

I'm no fan of liberals but "a shred of evidence that proves without a doubt" is the dumbest thing I've read all week.

This is fucking scary...

I see no issue with this

Of course carnist autists will sperg out though

That was my point, and the reason we have so many is for beef production

your planet dude

You see melting icecaps, I see land becoming available in Greenland and Siberia

>he fell for the overpopulation meme

>Your thoughts?

Fuck poor people! Let them eat grains and veggies!

They should start eating politicians.

My thoughts?

Fucking good. And yes, I'm a meat eater

ITT: we focus on our mistaken understanding of semantics in order to avoid having to address the actual content of someone's argument.

Stay pleb, kiddo

>takes avg temperature from an el nino year 1997 and then says the next 17 years never warmed

Who intentionally selects a statistical range of years? People trying to fish for bullshit.

>humans are changing the environment
>lets essentially tax another animal for humans actions because humans are raising them and eating them
>ignore that humans practically wiped out almost all large mammals

Its a load of shit.

>if I have to pay 25 cents more for my hamboigahs so the government can fix more roads, the cows will go extinct
This is what Americans ACTUALLY believe

1 - Not American.
2 - Not opposed to taxes, just BS taxes based on a bullshit premise.
3 - I dont know how you did the mental gymnastics to go from the fact that humans have wiped out almost all large mammals that have ever existed to cows will go extinct over a tax. It was rather pointing out that livestock simply replaced wildlife and most likely in much smaller numbers so the livestock's "emissions" is a human created problem perspective is BS.

Im always amazed at the stupidity you show user.

you realize the cows aren't the ones paying the taxes, right?

nigga what the fuck

In any case, this is a fantastic idea that will result in the improved health of everybody and the slightly reduced acceleration of our destruction of the planet

I only hope some country outlaws meat eating entirely

>most likely in much smaller numbers
nigga is you serious?
This literally incredible. Like I refuse to believe that you believe this

>Happy to live in soviet russia

was this supposed to be an in-joke?

Check the credits and see which international corporations sponsor them.
It's no joke, as much as you'd like it to be an instance of Poe's Law (as would I).