Visitors Now:
Total Visits:
Total Stories:
Profile image
By Moonbattery (Reporter)
Contributor profile | More stories
Story Views

Now:
Last Hour:
Last 24 Hours:
Total:

Masterminds Attempt to Justify Taxing Food to Control the Climate

Monday, November 21, 2016 6:01
% of readers think this story is Fact. Add your two cents.

(Before It's News)

It is easy to laugh at global warming fanatics, with their hysterical predictions of doom and their unworkable, ineffectual solutions to a problem that doesn’t exist. But the current of raw malevolence — or at best depraved indifference to human suffering — that characterizes this bizarre ideological cult is anything but funny. For example, the journal Nature Climate Change recently published an article entitled, “Mitigation Potential and Global Health Impacts From Emissions Pricing of Food Commodities.” The abstract:

The projected rise in food-related greenhouse gas emissions could seriously impede efforts to limit global warming to acceptable levels. Despite that, food production and consumption have long been excluded from climate policies, in part due to concerns about the potential impact on food security. Using a coupled agriculture and health modelling framework, we show that the global climate change mitigation potential of emissions pricing of food commodities could be substantial, and that levying greenhouse gas taxes on food commodities could, if appropriately designed, be a health-promoting climate policy in high-income countries, as well as in most low- and middle-income countries. Sparing food groups known to be beneficial for health from taxation, selectively compensating for income losses associated with tax-related price increases, and using a portion of tax revenues for health promotion are potential policy options that could help avert most of the negative health impacts experienced by vulnerable groups, whilst still promoting changes towards diets which are more environmentally sustainable.

To translate out of the B.S.-ese, the article attempts to justify fighting “climate change” by taxing food, with the idea that anything you tax you get less of. Like everything in Global Warming Land, it all hinges on the unproven not to mention unlikely assumption that regulating CO2 emissions can noticeably affect the climate:

Much of the emissions reduction would stem from higher prices and lower consumption of animal products, as their emissions are particularly high. The researchers found that beef would have to be 40% more expensive globally to pay for the climate damage caused by its production. The price of milk and other meats would need to increase by up to 20%, and the price of vegetable oils would also increase significantly. The researchers estimate that such price increases would result in around 10% lower consumption of food items that are high in emissions.

Thereby, an unchanging climate will be secured for the first time in Earth’s history.

From commentary at Watts Up With That:

This proposal, from a group of people who have probably never missed a meal in their lives, is totally obscene. …

Needlessly exacerbating the risk poor people don’t get enough to eat, especially children and pregnant mothers, who are especially vulnerable to adverse health impacts from lack of protein in their diet – if this ghastly proposal is ever implemented, future generations will look upon it as a crime against humanity.

But from the point of view of the masterminds who would impose this, forcibly altering our diet is not just a price to be paid, but a benefit in itself. Why settle for controlling the weather when you can also control who eats what?

Progressives’ naked lust for absolute power is appalling to behold.

eco-fascism
Think of the emissions reductions if they starve us all.

On tips from Steve A, Bodhisattva, Dan F, and Stormfax.

Report abuse

Comments

Your Comments
Question   Razz  Sad   Evil  Exclaim  Smile  Redface  Biggrin  Surprised  Eek   Confused   Cool  LOL   Mad   Twisted  Rolleyes   Wink  Idea  Arrow  Neutral  Cry   Mr. Green

Total 1 comment
  • Oh man. First a disclaimer. I may or may not type crap.

    That “food” you’re talking about already has implied taxation, I don’t mean that in a financial sense, either.

    But more directly relevant to the article, bureaucrats do seem to like piling on more and more convoluted garbage though, not exactly surprising.

Top Stories
Recent Stories

Register

Newsletter

Email this story
Email this story

If you really want to ban this commenter, please write down the reason:

If you really want to disable all recommended stories, click on OK button. After that, you will be redirect to your options page.