Timeline for Would a tax on non-organic meat have environmental benefits?
Current License: CC BY-SA 3.0
6 events
| when toggle format | what | by | license | comment | |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| May 2, 2018 at 16:42 | vote | accept | LShaver♦ | ||
| Mar 19, 2018 at 18:45 | comment | added | Jean-Paul Calderone | Sure. It doesn't come for free, though. The study details various nutritional shortfalls that would come along with the elimination of animals. Anyway, just wanted to point out that it's not a 50% improvement we're considering here. Now that would be a big win. | |
| Mar 19, 2018 at 18:36 | comment | added | LShaver♦ | @Jean-PaulCalderone "only" 2.6% of US emissions is about 134,000 kilotons of CO2 -- equivalent to emissions of 27 million average world citizens. Nothing to sneeze at, by any means. Source. | |
| Mar 15, 2018 at 13:44 | comment | added | Jean-Paul Calderone | Some results recently published related to the greenhouse gas (GHG) portions of this answer. pnas.org/content/114/48/E10301 concludes "removal of animals from the US agricultural system resulted in predictions of ... a decrease of 2.6 percentage units in US GHG emissions". Doesn't really contradict the answer given here but it challenges the implication of the tangential comment "... meat farming ... worse than not eating meat". 2.6% US GHG is not nothing, but it's far from 1.5-100x. | |
| Jul 22, 2016 at 7:03 | comment | added | LShaver♦ | Thanks for the thorough analysis, it seems you've put quite a bit of thought/research into this. Are there methods to either reduce meat consumption and/or reduce the environmental harm caused by the meat industry, that you think would be relatively effective? | |
| Jul 20, 2016 at 3:22 | history | answered | Móż | CC BY-SA 3.0 |