[utopkara]

OK sure, do we also put carbon tax on wheat, and other vegetables? ~750 million tons of wheat is produced yearly, vs ~260 million tons of beef. Excepting the case of perennial plants, unused parts of vegetables (e.g. wheat straw) have a hefty carbon footprint. BTW, rice is a case in itself.

[SeeDave]

From my understanding (which could be complete and total junk science/quackery)... wheat and other vegetables are carbon neutral. CO2 is extracted from the atmosphere, and used to grow the plants. Even unused parts (wheat straw) are a type of carbon "sink" in that the atmospheric carbon is trapped in organic matter which can be "upcycled" into paper products, etc.

I believe this thought process is why corn-ethanol was so hyped, as it was sold as a 'net carbon zero' fuel.

Not looking for a flamewar here, and I would be grateful if you could correct any misunderstandings I may have. I've got an 8th grade science-fair level of education on this one, so I'm more than open to your thoughts!

[Neeek]

Not to mention that you need to grow the grain to feed the beef if they aren't grass fed cattle.

[maxerickson]

Industrial farming is dependent on fertilizers derived from natural gas and diesel to run tractors. No industrially produced crops are carbon neutral.

[lucidguppy]

Your argument needs some numbers on it for clarity.

Here is some info for you

http://www.greeneatz.com/foods-carbon-footprint.html

[utopkara]

Thank you for this table. Yet, the footprint size you measure will depend on what you are counting. We eat meat mostly for protein; and for that beef is about 10x more efficient than wheat, and 3x more efficient than lentils by weight. Also important is when you stop measuring, ie scope: irrigation, forest clearing, fertilizers, are no small damage in terms of causing climate change, reducing carbon sequestering ability of nature. The point of taxing is to make long term invisible costs visible; if anything, industrial agriculture has been disastrous for environment; if the goal is to keep this damage in check, singling out beef as a target for taxing doesn’t make any sense.

[cageface]

Beef has a vastly larger carbon footprint per KG than any grain. It's the least environmentally efficient protein source there is. And that's not even factoring in wasteful and excessive use of antibiotics, pollution of water sources etc.

https://www.theguardian.com/environment/2014/jul/21/giving-u...

[adrianmonk]

If carbon is harmful, I don't see why we should play favorites. The environment doesn't care where the carbon comes from. Put a tax on everything in proportion to its carbon production. Meat, vegetables, electricity bill, airplane tickets, etc. And this includes the disposal as well as production.

[maxerickson]

Sure why not. C0₂ emissions per grain calorie are a lot smaller than per meat calorie, so it won't have as much impact on behavior.

[lern_too_spel]

You could. That would tax meat production even more. In order to raise cattle, you first need to grow the alfalfa to feed them.