Archived copies of the article: archive.today ghostarchive.org

You are viewing a single thread.
View all comments View context
3 points

Raising the cost will reduce demand, and prompt producers to either reduce supply to avoid overproduction or find a way to keep costs down.

In first case, there will be less cow farts, and less meat and milk on the tables of poor people. There will be public health consequences, but emissions will be reduced.

In the second case, the government will get more taxes, emissions will be the same, and there will be possible public health issues due to lower meat/milk quality resulted from cost cuts.

In both cases, big manufacturers will likely keep their profits, small farmers will be impacted more and may go out of business, and public health will be at risk.

Where am I wrong? I have no economic expertise and no data, and the government should have both, at least in theory.

permalink
report
parent
reply
1 point

I did some math and logistics on the subject. Rather than repost it again, I posted it as a top level comment in this thread.

https://lemmy.world/comment/10829248

permalink
report
parent
reply

Climate - truthful information about climate, related activism and politics.

!climate@slrpnk.net

Create post

Discussion of climate, how it is changing, activism around that, the politics, and the energy systems change we need in order to stabilize things.

As a starting point, the burning of fossil fuels, and to a lesser extent deforestation and release of methane are responsible for the warming in recent decades:

How much each change to the atmosphere has warmed the world:

Recommended actions to cut greenhouse gas emissions in the near future:

Anti-science, inactivism, and unsupported conspiracy theories are not ok here.

Community stats

  • 4.4K

    Monthly active users

  • 2K

    Posts

  • 6.8K

    Comments

Community moderators