Active Low-Carber Forums
Atkins diet and low carb discussion provided free for information only, not as medical advice.
Home Plans Tips Recipes Tools Stories Studies Products
Active Low-Carber Forums
A sugar-free zone


Welcome to the Active Low-Carber Forums.
Support for Atkins diet, Protein Power, Neanderthin (Paleo Diet), CAD/CALP, Dr. Bernstein Diabetes Solution and any other healthy low-carb diet or plan, all are welcome in our lowcarb community. Forget starvation and fad diets -- join the healthy eating crowd! You may register by clicking here, it's free!

Go Back   Active Low-Carber Forums > Main Low-Carb Diets Forums & Support > Low-Carb Studies & Research / Media Watch > LC Research/Media
User Name
Password
FAQ Members Calendar Mark Forums Read Search Gallery My P.L.A.N. Survey


Reply
 
Thread Tools Display Modes
  #1   ^
Old Sun, Feb-07-21, 05:44
Demi's Avatar
Demi Demi is offline
Posts: 23,488
 
Plan: Low Carb
Stats: 217/203/160 Female 5'10"
BF:
Progress: 25%
Location: UK
Default No to plans for ‘meat tax’

Quote:
HANDS OFF OUR SAUSAGES No10 slaps down plans for ‘meat tax’ after outrage from MPs over green agenda

DOWNING Street slapped down mooted plans for a meat tax tonight - after MPs and experts rounded on the barmy plans.

It came after No10 and the Treasury ordered Whitehall chiefs to come up with plans to slap charges on anything that requires high carbon emissions to produce.

The PM wants to get to net zero by 2050 to meet his eco-goals - but has yet to unveil a detailed plan to make it happen.

But last night officials put the proposed policy in the bin and insisted the nation's bangers were safe.

A senior No10 official said tonight: ‘This is categorically not going to happen.

"We will not be imposing a meat tax on the great British banger or anything else."


It would have meant that dinner time favourites like sausages, chops and bacon could have rocketed in price.

Last night critics told Boris Johnson he does not need to hike taxes to go green.

They urged him to invest in green jobs instead, and give businesses incentives to change their polluting practises.

In last year’s Energy White Paper, ministers vowed to create a new UK Emissions Trading Scheme - with caps set on how much greenhouses gases businesses can produce.

It will start with energy-intensive industries including the food industry, electricity generation and the aviation sector, but will be expanded across the economy.

And there are fears that polluting taxes - currently only aimed at heavy industry, huge power generators and gas-guzzling airlines - will be extended to other parts of the economy that aren't eco-friendly too.

Ministers are drawing up fresh eco plans to bring to the table ahead of the UK hosting COP26 climate change summit in Glasgow later this year.

Insiders admitted the plans on emissions trading had begun but insisted they were in the very early stages of development with no firm decisions yet.

Earlier, Boris Johnson's spokesperson had refused to rule out the move, saying: “I am not going to speculate on policy changes ahead of fiscal events.”

But MPs, businesses and think tanks hit out at any plans which would whack families in their grocery bills - and told the PM to leave the nation's bangers alone.

Top Tory Neil Parish, Chair of the Environment Committee, told The Sun slapping any charges on meat would hit people struggling to put food on the table after their finances were ravaged by the pandemic.

He said: "There’s a lot we can do before we get to a tax.

"As a dairy, beef and sheep farmer in the past, the idea of a meat tax would drive me slightly over the top.

"We have to remember that there’s a lot of people out there still struggling to buy food.

"It’s the poorest in society who would pay for it - and they may not change their habits anyway.

Instead ministers should look at support payments for farmers to change their practices and reduce harmful emissions instead - and urged the PM to look at education about the environment going forward.

Anneliese Dodds MP, Labour’s Shadow Chancellor, slapped down the calls today and said it was the worst time to consider such a move.

She blasted: "The UK is in the middle of the worst economic crisis of any major economy - now is not the time to be hiking taxes on families across the country, yet

Any change must be fair, and go hand in hand with action to shore up family finances and improve living standards after over a decade of irresponsible decisions by the Conservatives."

Environmental research group CE Delft said earlier this year that hiking the cost of beef by 25 per cent could cover the production's environmental damage - and urged the EU to get on board.

The taxes would drastically slash consumption and emissions, researchers said.

Recent studies by a team at Oxford University have calculated that surcharges of 40 per cent on beef and 15 per cent on lamb may be needed.

The Behavioural Insights Team - partly owned by the Cabinet Office - last year suggested a carbon tax targeting producers, which they claimed could drive innovation of green policies "without unduly penalising consumers who enjoy eating red meat".

But there are fears this will automatically trickle down and hit Brits in the pocket.

But John O’Connell, chief executive of the TaxPayers' Alliance, lashed out at the plans, telling The Sun the tax burden was already sky-high.

He said: “New eco taxes would leave slim pickings for struggling families, who rely on cheap energy and food to heat their homes and put dinner on the table.

“With the highest tax levels in 70 years, taxpayers have already had their belts tightened.

“Ministers must ease the burden on Brits before any green tax hikes.”

Food producers weighed in too, vowing to oppose the plans which would hit the poor the hardest.

Denis Lynn, chairman of top British food producer Finnebrogue Artisan, commented: “We don’t need a carbon tax that will hit the poorest hardest. We need clear and credible front-of-pack environmental scores, so consumers can start voting with their feet.

“Finnebrogue will put traffic light style environmental scores on all our products, whether they are green, amber or red. Consumers deserve this transparency.

"They want producers like us to make food that doesn’t destroy the planet. That’s our mission, but the public shouldn’t have to pay for it.”

Responding to the Prime Minister's reported plans, Eamonn Ives, Senior Researcher at the Centre for Policy Studies, said any levies should be applied across the board so certain industries and consumers don’t get whacked.

He said: “Ideally, any carbon tax would be applied uniformly across the economy to avoid creating economic distortions, and to capture as many sources of emissions as possible, including from imported carbon intensive goods and energy - as previously called for by the CPS.”

And the think tank demanded the Government slash income tax to balance it out, ensuring that the poor are not hit by the move.

He added: “This would ensure the carbon tax would not be regressive, and mean that the costs of transitioning to a Net Zero economy are not shouldered by the least well off in society."


https://www.thesun.co.uk/news/polit...n-green-agenda/
Reply With Quote
Sponsored Links
  #2   ^
Old Sun, Feb-07-21, 06:54
BawdyWench's Avatar
BawdyWench BawdyWench is offline
Posts: 8,537
 
Plan: Kendall & Naiman
Stats: 212/191/170 Female 5'6"
BF:
Progress: 50%
Location: Rural Maine
Default

Good for them! Bangers are safe! I love that this is rather tongue-in-cheek so that it mirrors what a totally absurd idea it was.
Reply With Quote
  #3   ^
Old Mon, Feb-08-21, 09:30
sandy867's Avatar
sandy867 sandy867 is offline
Senior Member
Posts: 6,011
 
Plan: low lact/cals/fasts, RNY
Stats: 306/225/120 Female 64"
BF:
Progress: 44%
Location: SW BC
Default

I really don't get why natural emissions are targeted. Think about it. Grass eaters are simply turning grass into CO2 and water a little quicker than the bacteria and fungi that would do it anyway when the grass dies, as it will. Same with burning wood naturally. The wood will decompose into CO2, ash and water anyway. Either the bacteria and fungi use it up, or we do. No difference.

The only way to stop it is to carbon sink it, and do we really want to do that? Isn't it better to produce good soil from our dead plants, than to bury them far underground where decomposition can't get them, and they turn into rocks? And believe me, the best soil is produced from the back end of grazers! And worms!

Go after fossil fuel use I figure, rather than living things. And I believe we are doing that, if slowly.
Reply With Quote
  #4   ^
Old Mon, Feb-15-21, 10:21
WereBear's Avatar
WereBear WereBear is offline
Posts: 13,270
 
Plan: Epi-Paleo/IF
Stats: 220/123/150 Female 67
BF:
Progress: 139%
Location: USA
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by sandy867
Go after fossil fuel use I figure, rather than living things. And I believe we are doing that, if slowly.


Which is exactly why we are being pushed into meatless existence through manufactured food with a high markup and no nutritional value...
Reply With Quote
  #5   ^
Old Mon, Feb-15-21, 11:17
Ms Arielle's Avatar
Ms Arielle Ms Arielle is offline
Senior Member
Posts: 15,266
 
Plan: atkins
Stats: 255/230/200 Female 5'8"
BF:
Progress: 45%
Location: Massachusetts
Default

Right. I burn wood. Cut from my own woods...... the volume of trees consumes more carbon than released.

Grazing animals are a better use of land than when veggies are grown: till, lay down ploy tubing for irrigation, lay down plastic, set in plants and picking which requires a pass of a gas guzzling ( or diesel) tractor or planter or truck for each process........

Someone needs to find the fuel usage of big farming.

Cattle in feedlot have not spent whole life in that area of management. Usually cattle are raised on grass, perhaps supplemented with grains, then finished on hay and a higher percentage of grains.

We tend to focus on huge operations and forget many animals are raised by small operations.

Perhaps large greenhouse production is worth examining for fuel emissions as it maybe a smaller footprint than cereal production.
Reply With Quote
  #6   ^
Old Mon, Feb-15-21, 20:04
Bob-a-rama's Avatar
Bob-a-rama Bob-a-rama is offline
Senior Member
Posts: 1,708
 
Plan: Keto (Atkins Induction)
Stats: 235/171/185 Male 5' 11"
BF:
Progress: 128%
Location: Florida
Default

Meat animals are actually kinder to the environment than veggies. Stop the propaganda by the corporate farmers and veggie folks.

First of all, according to a study by Cornell University and the Environmental Protection Agency, the fertilizer industry emits more greenhouse methane than all the cow burps and farts on the planet combined.
Quote:
People tend to equate methane with cow farts (though their burps are worse), but we may be pointing our fingers in all the wrong places, according to a new study. The production of ammonia for fertilizer may result in up to 100 times more emissions than has been previously estimated for this sector. And that alone is more than what the Environmental Protection Agency estimates all industries emit across the U.S.

Cows graze on grassland and need nothing other than what mother nature provides.

Growing crops on grassland is difficult. To do that you need tons of fertilizers, herbicides, pesticides, and our most precocious resource, fresh water.

So if you eat 100% grass fed beef, you are doing the atmosphere a favor. If you eat grain 'finished' beef, the corn grown to feed the cows on the feed lot is not environmentally friendly. It's not the beef it's the corn. And all the corn does is fatten the beef up so they get more money when they sell the cow.

If you tell a lie often enough, people will believe it. And big agriculture and the vegan lobby have been telling this lie way too often. It's up to us to set them straight whenever and wherever we can or they will take our meat away from us, and kill the atmosphere while they are doing it.

Speak out!
Reply With Quote
  #7   ^
Old Mon, Feb-15-21, 20:27
sandy867's Avatar
sandy867 sandy867 is offline
Senior Member
Posts: 6,011
 
Plan: low lact/cals/fasts, RNY
Stats: 306/225/120 Female 64"
BF:
Progress: 44%
Location: SW BC
Default

I also was thinking about how trees only have a canopy of green, whereas a field of grain has just as much green covering the land...just not separated from the ground by trunks. And I have seen a fully grown field of rapeseed or canola. That is a six foot thickly woven dense mat of nitrogen fixing green stuff, which is used to produce precious oil, some of which can substitute for fossil fuels in the way of biodiesel or can be manufactured into plastics or lubricants.
Reply With Quote
Reply

Thread Tools
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

vB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off



All times are GMT -6. The time now is 10:57.


Copyright © 2000-2021 Active Low-Carber Forums @ forum.lowcarber.org
Powered by: vBulletin, Copyright ©2000 - 2021, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.