Haunting The Library
Thursday, February 10, 2011
As you no doubt have read in the papers, or seen on the TV news, food prices have recently shot up, leading the warmists to blame global warming, of course. Sensible people point to the insane practice of turning food into biofuels that no one wants. but everyone is feeling the pinch of higher food prices, with the poor especially hard hit by the rise.
So it should come as no surprise then, to read that the warmist’s answer to this is to call for a hefty “climate tax” on all milk, dairy produce, and meat products.
I know, you’re probably rubbing your eyes in disbelief and thinking “Oh come on, not even they would be that crass” but the call has already gone out in the pages of favoured warmist journal, Climate Change. As MSNBC reports:
Many people think with either their wallets or their stomachs. Taking advantage of that can be used to reduce greenhouse gas emissions.
A tax on meat and milk would likely mean we’d buy less of the foods that contribute to climate change. And that’s good for the environment, said a study published in the journal Climate Change.
(ARTICLE CONTINUES BELOW)
The problem, according to the authors of the study calling for this latest insanity, is that “we don’t pay the full ‘climate-cost’” of the food that we eat, and must be made to do so as part of a program to move us towards a more “climate-smart” diet of beans and vegetables:
Tacking about $82 onto the cost of beef for every “ton of carbon dioxide equivalent” would reduce Europe’s beef consumption by 15 percent. By taxing all meats and milk, Europe’s greenhouse gas emissions would be reduced by about 7 percent, according to the study.
. . . The benefit of a tax is that it doesn’t require new technologies and could be implemented as soon as legislation was passed. Economically encouraging people to change their eating habits would not only be good for the environment, but would free up land for other uses.
Far more food can be produced on land farmed for beans, corn and other crops, than if it was used for cattle pasture or producing animal feed.
So those with plenty of money, of course, or the land to farm their own organic beef and produce their own organic milk, would be fine, but the vast majority of normal people would end up paying a huge “climate-tax” as part of a move to force them to switch to eating more beans and less steak.
I’m beginning to think that even if their worst predictions of climate catastrophe weren’t total BS, it would still be preferable to living in the sort of world these people envisage for us, living off beans and tofu in unheated houses wearing recycled clothes. I think I would rather burn, thank you very much. Or freeze, or whatever the threat of the week is this week.
This article was posted: Thursday, February 10, 2011 at 9:04 am