Skip to content

Loony Greens Demand Meat Tax

January 5, 2019

By Paul Homewood

  

h/t Patsy Lacey

  

From the Express:

image

A GREEN MP has called on Parliament to impose a tax on meat to cut greenhouse gas emissions and reduce climate change.

Caroline Lucas told delegates at the Oxford Farming Conference an overhaul of Britain’s agri-industrial food system is needed because it is in “crisis” and is favouring consolidation at the expense of human health, ecology and the livelihoods of farmers. In a speech entitled ‘A radical new vision for British agriculture’ delivered on Friday, Ms Lucas set out her vision for farming which included greater attention to animal welfare, fewer pesticides, a reduction in food waste, and adopting a diet with less meat and dairy products. Half of all farmed animal emissions come from beef and lamb, according to research by scientists Joseph Poore and Thomas Nemecek.

Ms Lucas referred to MP Claire Perry, who said if the Cabinet ate less beef to set an example it would lead to the introduction of a “nanny state”.

Ms Lucas said: “At the risk of incurring the wrath of the energy secretary in particular who said recently that encouraging people to eat less meat would be ‘the worst sort of nanny state ever’, I’d add that we need serious consideration of measures like a meat tax, particularly for beef.

“I accept that British sheep farming is one of the least intensive forms of livestock farming so perhaps a banded system according to production would help, offset for more sustainable meat producers through increased revenue from targeted agri-environment schemes.”

But NFU vice president Stuart Roberts hit back at her demands, tweeting: “We all share the ambition to address climate change but taxing isn’t the way.

“There’s great potential for market based drivers and future agriculture policy to underpin our positive direction of travel without looking at regressive tax solution. Let’s see market-based solutions.”

Earlier in the week, Minettte Batters, president of the National Farmers’ Union called for zero farming emissions by 2040.

Ms Lucas said she felt “encouraged” to hear her comments and hopes she can count on the NFU to support her amendment to the Agriculture Bill to achieve it.

During a speech at the conference this week, Ms Batters said: “Our aim must be ambitious: to get our industry to net zero across all greenhouse gas inventories by 2040 or before.”

But critics argue that poor people will be hit hardest by a meat tax and say it will not bring greenhouse gas emissions down to safe levels.

Nick Allen, head of the British Meat Processors Association, said: “We have one of the best grass growing climate in the world. So we have the ability to turn good grass into good meat better than anyone else.

“I don’t believe it would achieve the desired result.”

Ms Lucas tweeted: “We need huge reduction in meat-eating to avoid climate breakdown. Better manure management and selection of feed can reduce farming emissions – but need to consider potential of #Meattax too.”

One person tweeted back: “So a regressive #Meattax is the answer? Let’s make meat a luxury item for the well-off, no @CarolineLucas. Don’t blame ordinary people for climate change, lecturing them about what they eat.”

Livestock accounts for five per cent of Britain’s greenhouse gas emissions. 

https://www.express.co.uk/news/politics/1067573/meat-tax-green-party-caroline-lucas-climate-change

 

It would be helpful if the NFU and others stopped being a patsy for global warming dogma. For instance:

“But NFU vice president Stuart Roberts hit back at her demands, tweeting: “We all share the ambition to address climate change but taxing isn’t the way.

Earlier in the week, Minettte Batters, president of the National Farmers’ Union called for zero farming emissions by 2040. “

 

 

Isn’t it time the NFU made it clear that whatever British farmers do, it will make bugger all difference to global emissions?

Or that much of the land used by pastoral farming is pretty useless for crops? The end result would inevitable be reduced food production and higher food prices. Does anybody sane really want that?

Let’s not kid ourselves. There is one inevitable outcome from all of this. One we concede a meat tax, it will soon morph into a food tax. After all, arable farming is also carbon intensive, given all of the fertilisers, machinery and processing involved.

How long will it be be before eco-loons like Caroline Lucas are demanding that we all eat less, and that we need food taxes to enforce this?

And the poor? Let them eat cake.

Advertisements
33 Comments
  1. Ajax Ornis permalink
    January 5, 2019 10:11 pm

    The ignorance is overpowering. Loony greens indeed. Could think of stronger epithets !

    • Philip of Taos permalink
      January 6, 2019 6:53 pm

      At what point does somebody grab these idiots by the ear and walk them out of the building, I”d suggest tar and feathers but they would be offended because tar is made from fossil fuels. (oil)

  2. January 5, 2019 10:12 pm

    The southern hemisphere has not warmed in 70 years in the month of December. ‘What does that tell you about the ‘greenhouse effect’?

    • 1saveenergy permalink
      January 6, 2019 8:35 am

      You need to fix the broken glass, shut the door, close the roof vents & turn on the heater !

      OR…just put the thermometer next to a heat lamp (:-))

    • January 6, 2019 9:49 am

      Are you sure? Here are regional average maximum temperatures for Walgett in Australia, which suggest some warming in recent decades, but the late 19th century was roughly as warm there as today:

  3. Jret permalink
    January 5, 2019 10:32 pm

    A tax on rice would be needed too as this is a large contributor to GHG

  4. Charles Wardrop, permalink
    January 5, 2019 10:39 pm

    CO2 from UK=1.3% of world total.

    • Hivemind permalink
      January 6, 2019 10:54 am

      Human total, not world total. Remember, human emissions is only 5% of world total.

  5. matthew dalby permalink
    January 5, 2019 10:43 pm

    Regardless of carbon emissions a lot of meat production is bad for the environment. Intensively produced meat involves feeding crops such as wheat or soya to animals, and it takes up to 10kg of feed to produce 1kg of meat. This leads to huge amounts of land being needed to produce relatively small amounts of meat, leading to habitat loss and the risk of species going extinct. Producing meat from pasture is probably less damaging but still requires far more land than a plant based diet. Yes a lot of pasture land is unsuitable for growing crops, but if people ate a lot less animal products we could still produce enough food and return a lot of marginal land to a much more natural state.
    I’m not sure if taxes are the best way to encourage people to switch to lower impact diets, but taxing meat would be no more of a nanny state than taxing tobacco or alcohol.
    If people call “greens” loonies for saying we should eat less meat then the greens only have themselves to blame, because a lot of people know they’ve been lying about climate change and find it hard to take anything they say seriously.
    As someone who considers them self to be a environmentalist but doesn’t believe in dangerous man made global warming (a very rare species) I’ve worried for a long time that the obsession with climate change would destroy the credability of the green movement and this just proves the point. There is a serious environmental problem, namely biodiversity loss partly caused by land being used to produce crops that are fed to animals, but when greens point this out no one listens because the greens have cried wolf too often in the past.

    • Graeme No.3 permalink
      January 6, 2019 1:52 am

      And the loss of habitat from square kilometres of solar panels? And the forests “trimmed” to allow free passage of wind to the turbines? And the loss of forests with the obsession with “green fuels” like wood pellets and palm oil?
      The “greenies” are competing with the robber barons to destroy the environment.

    • Gamecock permalink
      January 6, 2019 3:05 am

      “This leads to huge amounts of land being needed to produce relatively small amounts of meat, leading to habitat loss and the risk of species going extinct.”

      “no one listens because the greens have cried wolf too often in the past.”

      But you aren’t crying wolf . . . my eating a steak is going to make species extinct. LOL.

      • dave permalink
        January 6, 2019 11:54 am

        The life-stock expense is not in producing the carbohydrates, but the protein and fats. Most people in the world do not over consume the latter.

        To replace animal protein with vegetable protein will need a LOT more crops.

        Crops are low grade food. And to simply eat more carbohydrates will, for most poor people as they transition into modern life, simply reproduce the obesity and diabetes disaster, that the West has already plunged into by listening to big-head doctors and governments and unscientific green loonies, who have in common that they do not understand physiology.

    • Mike Jackson permalink
      January 6, 2019 11:51 am

      The “green movement” never had any credibility to start with. None of the “green” NGOs has anything to do with “the envirionment” which they don’t understand and have never understood.

      If they had an ounce of coherence, a little bit of humility, and weren’t so against everyone having a decent standard of living then their campaigns against waste and the despoliation of the environment might not be treated with such cynicism. As examples of Greenpeace’s hypocrisy you need only look at Brent Spar and the recent Rainbow Warrior 2 revelations and more widely the demand that we all reduce our carbon footprint by those 20,000+ who every December gad off to a two-week gabfest.

      Care for the environment means recycling what makes sense to recycle and disposing sensibly of what doesn’t. It means minimising pollution, not attempting to eliminate it to the extent that overall human welfare is adversely affected. It means generating electricity as efficiently and cheaply as possible because it is only wealth that permits any society the luxury of preserving what “natural” environment we have and managing the rest in a way that allows life — flora, fauna, and human — to flourish.

      We are by and large healthier, wealthier, better-educated, longer-lived, and happier than we have ever been. Why should we start to reverse millennia of human development just to keep Caroline Lucas and her fellow watermelons happy?

  6. Chilli permalink
    January 5, 2019 11:27 pm

    The NFU are absolutely useless on this. They should stick to emphasising the importance of their industry and the need to keep costs and comsumer prices down and – if they must address the climate change nonsense – then it should only be to point out how insignificant UK agricultural emissions are on a global scale.

  7. Ian Terry permalink
    January 5, 2019 11:27 pm

    Is there no limit what comes out of this woman’s mouth. Incapable it seems to be able to engage brain before opening her mouth. But. That is the Greens all over. There policies if ever implemented would backrupt any country and it would be the poorest in society that would take the hit

    • Graeme No.3 permalink
      January 6, 2019 1:53 am

      They would be reduced to eating their greenies.

      • Gerry, England permalink
        January 8, 2019 1:53 pm

        I think that even the poor have standards that would prevent them from eating the greens. Pigs, now they are not fussy.

  8. billbedford permalink
    January 5, 2019 11:32 pm

    Animals do not produce any carbon dioxide. What they do is to break down food, which is ultimately formed from plant material, and release the Co2 from which it was made.

    This is a function that ALL animals share – cow, sheep, dogs, cats, mice fleas — and members of the Green Party.

  9. January 6, 2019 9:05 am

    Anyone who has swallowed the climate myths whole can be relied upon to emit nonsense about any related topic, which goes double for politically active types.

  10. Jules permalink
    January 6, 2019 9:39 am

    Yes, lets save the climate through another tax, how inspirational.

  11. mikewaite permalink
    January 6, 2019 10:04 am

    Let me just correct one of those statements and apply it elsewhere; wind farms and solar farms :

    “This leads to huge amounts of land being needed to produce relatively small amounts of energy , leading to habitat loss and the risk of species going extinct.”

    As for reducing meat consumption, a fairer alternative to a tax is a rationing system to ensure that the poor are not unfairly treated. It would of course be very inefficient, financially, requiring numerous bureaucrats to run it and prevent abuse, but if they were listed as “green jobs” everyone would be happy.
    Of course one would have to ID tag the coupons to specific individuals to prevent unscrupulous vegetarians selling their coupons on the black market – perhaps they could be allowed to have extra aubergine or courgette rations in recompense.

  12. Jules permalink
    January 6, 2019 10:08 am

    ‘And the poor? Let them eat cake‘

    I think its insects for the prole.

  13. Max Sawyer permalink
    January 6, 2019 12:00 pm

    How many Green MPs are there? Oh, just the one (out of 650). “Wisdom of the crowd” in action?

  14. January 6, 2019 12:11 pm

    Never lose site of the fact that their aim is to drastically reduce the human population….themselves excepted, of course.

    • January 6, 2019 12:12 pm

      Actually that would be “sight” but “site” might suffice.

  15. Henning Nielsen permalink
    January 6, 2019 5:01 pm

    Cows burp.
    Sheep burp.
    Pigs burp.

    They are destroying our climate.
    Kill them!
    Eat them!

  16. Henning Nielsen permalink
    January 6, 2019 5:07 pm

    “Earlier in the week, Minettte Batters, president of the National Farmers’ Union called for zero farming emissions by 2040.”

    That’s when all farmers have TCHs; Tesla Combined Harvesters.

  17. dennisambler permalink
    January 6, 2019 11:43 pm

    Farmers are subsidy farmers also and by supporting green schemes, more free money comes rolling in, like being paid for not farming, (set aside).

    • Gerry, England permalink
      January 8, 2019 1:50 pm

      The truth is that much of the subsidy goes to farmers to farm inefficiently so as to preserve the countryside as we love to see it. They could be much more efficient if say, all the hedgerows were removed.

  18. Gerry, England permalink
    January 7, 2019 1:46 pm

    NFU? Next to f*cking useless as it known.

  19. January 10, 2019 8:41 am

    It gets wors – Harebrain’s latest barking mad promotion, believe it or not…

    Climate change: Will insect-eating dogs help?
    https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/science-environment-46811358

    This got a slot on the climate-crazed BBC Radio 4 this morning.

Comments are closed.

%d bloggers like this: