Another great idea from the United Nations. Tax Meat until no one can afford to eat it except the rich. Why? To save the planet from global warming. Here’s the story from the UK Guardian:
Governments should Tax Meat production in order to stem the global rise in consumption and the environmental damage that goes with it, according to a UN expert. …
Prof Maarten Hajer, the lead author of a report into the impact of food production and the environment, told the UN environment assembly in Nairobi. ,,,
Hajer stopped short of calling for a tax on meat sold in supermarkets and shops, but he said people could be deterred from eating meat by increasing its price further up the supply chain.
“We think it’s better to price meats earlier in the chain, it’s easier.” …
It found that the food farmed and transported to feed 7 billion people is responsible for 24% of greenhouse gas emissions, and 60% of the loss of species around the world.
Now for a propaganda piece closer to home (for Americans), here’s a take on this same report by the Washington Post:
“Meat is Horrible: How Meat is Destroying the Planet”
Response: So eat less meat and save the environment? It is the whole autocratic mindset that bothers me. I am writing about this because of the implied threat that the government should step in and force us to change our eating habits by initiating ‘special’ taxes on stuff (in this case meat) that is supposedly ‘bad’ for us and particularly the environment.
This is already happening with tobacco products and, in some places, sugary drinks and snacks. However, meat is a basic part of the diet for most Americans. Any government policy that would discourage or restrict eating meat (by imposing extra taxes) would affect the majority of folks in America. The same line of thinking could also result in forced tax increases on other things like gas and automobiles.
So in order to ‘save the world,’ governments need to be more autocratic with less liberty for their citizens. You can be sure that the rich and the politicians will not be forced to give up their Prime Rib. This is just for the hundreds of millions of ‘little people’ like us and it is supposedly going to be ‘for our own good.’
Point is, we are now in an election season where we are voting for our leaders and for a new president. You might want to consider who among the possible candidates might be more likely to support or even force unwanted changes on us through executive orders, un-voted on administrative policies, and judicial activism.
This all about meat and I like my steak. But the same autocratic mindset could bring about all sorts of forced changes in America, also supposedly ‘for our own good’ and the good of society. Some maybe even affecting our religious freedom. For example, Hillary Clinton has already implied that when it comes to some issues like abortion, Christian teachings and beliefs ‘have to be changed.’ What about those of us who refuse to change our Biblical beliefs? *Top