Sin Tax
I read an interesting report by the Worldwatch
Institute about livestock and climate change. It
said, more than half of the world's global
emissions (51%) is caused by the life-cycle and
supply chain of animals raised for food. I am
having a tough time envisioning this number. It
puts the whole notion that we might be able to
reverse Climate Change by reducing fossil fuel
into perspective. Worldwatch Institute proposes
solutions ranging from reducing meat and dairy
consumption, to replacing livestock products
with analogs made from crops such as soy and
wheat, substituting biofuels for coal, among
other things. It also briefly mentions water and
energy consumption of livestock and processed
foods, and lists the GHGs attributable to
refrigerants used for livestock and processed
food products.
The more I read about Climate Change, the less I seem to understand global priorities and proposed solutions. As we getting closer to the UN Climate Change Conference in Copenhagen in December, what intrigues me is how little the impact of livestock on Climate Change was spoken about at the previous Climate Change conference at Copenhagen in March, which provided a summary of existing scientific knowledge since the IPCC report two years ago. Back in '07, the United Nations' FAO reported that annual greenhouse gas emissions from cattle was 18% (not 51), which still seemed like a crazy number to be ignored, given that it was higher than transport. This tells me, they not only grossly underestimated the figures but also understated the need to take drastic measures to reverse this problem. It sounds to me like the culture of silence being played all over again. Is it too big a problem to acknowledge and do something about? I don't see it being in the agenda for the conference in December either!
My reading today focussed a lot on Food and Climate Change related topics. The conclusion seems to be that when it comes to food, people will respond to incentives to eat right just as they do with everything else. I suppose they will. We gain more weight because gaining weight is cheaper! (Here's an interesting post, which also points to how eating healthy costs more) That seems to be the logic behind the fat tax and a whole bunch of pigovian taxes. But, a million questions come to mind about the long term benefits of sin-related taxes and how one tax might impact the other. There's a very old article I read about how cigarette tax and state-controlled smoking lead to a decrease in number of smokers, but caused problems related to weight gain among these people!
I wonder what kind of incentives one might offer people to make them decrease their consumption of meat, diary and processed foods, and what regrettable repercussions that might have in store for us. I also wonder what differences might become apparent between the rich and poor in the way they react to food-related incentives! Perhaps we need to think less in terms of taking action where it hurts us most, and more in terms of dealing with those "extraneous" issues (for a lack of a better word) such as preventing land degradation, controlling water pollution and proper disposal of animal waste, preventing loss of biodiversity, and other such things.
I am concerned and yet terribly lost with this whole Climate Change debate. Have I said that already? I think i have.
The more I read about Climate Change, the less I seem to understand global priorities and proposed solutions. As we getting closer to the UN Climate Change Conference in Copenhagen in December, what intrigues me is how little the impact of livestock on Climate Change was spoken about at the previous Climate Change conference at Copenhagen in March, which provided a summary of existing scientific knowledge since the IPCC report two years ago. Back in '07, the United Nations' FAO reported that annual greenhouse gas emissions from cattle was 18% (not 51), which still seemed like a crazy number to be ignored, given that it was higher than transport. This tells me, they not only grossly underestimated the figures but also understated the need to take drastic measures to reverse this problem. It sounds to me like the culture of silence being played all over again. Is it too big a problem to acknowledge and do something about? I don't see it being in the agenda for the conference in December either!
My reading today focussed a lot on Food and Climate Change related topics. The conclusion seems to be that when it comes to food, people will respond to incentives to eat right just as they do with everything else. I suppose they will. We gain more weight because gaining weight is cheaper! (Here's an interesting post, which also points to how eating healthy costs more) That seems to be the logic behind the fat tax and a whole bunch of pigovian taxes. But, a million questions come to mind about the long term benefits of sin-related taxes and how one tax might impact the other. There's a very old article I read about how cigarette tax and state-controlled smoking lead to a decrease in number of smokers, but caused problems related to weight gain among these people!
I wonder what kind of incentives one might offer people to make them decrease their consumption of meat, diary and processed foods, and what regrettable repercussions that might have in store for us. I also wonder what differences might become apparent between the rich and poor in the way they react to food-related incentives! Perhaps we need to think less in terms of taking action where it hurts us most, and more in terms of dealing with those "extraneous" issues (for a lack of a better word) such as preventing land degradation, controlling water pollution and proper disposal of animal waste, preventing loss of biodiversity, and other such things.
I am concerned and yet terribly lost with this whole Climate Change debate. Have I said that already? I think i have.
