Hacker News new | ask | show | jobs
by lucidguppy 3020 days ago
Your argument needs some numbers on it for clarity.

Here is some info for you

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

1 comments

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.